Talk:Soviet war crimes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Estonia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Soviet war crimes is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Undue weight[edit]

Undue weight is being given to Senyavskaya's opinion. This is not an article about Beevor's book, and we don't need to devote an entire paragraph to something that can be summarised and combined into the paragraph above. Rzheshevsky's view is given one sentence and so should Senyavskaya's opinion. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Why should she be given only one sentence when she has an entire article devoted to the issue?
I removed one of the sentences mentioning Beevor, but I don't see why the others should be removed. -YMB29 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of undue weight, why do you think that Kohl's wife should be mentioned here? -YMB29 (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not how WP:DUE works. If Senyavskaya's claim that rapes were only a small component of overall Soviet War Crimes is true, then having lots of text about it runs counter to that proposition by making rapes the focus of this article. Rzheshevsky's view is given one sentence, why should Senyavskaya be given more? Kohl's wife is mentioned in Rape during the occupation of Germany, probably undue here. --Nug (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Why do you make Senyavskaya dependent on Rzheshevsky?
The rapes are already made a focus of the article by other sources. The text cited to her responds to those sources. -YMB29 (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
How is Senyavskaya more important than Rzheshevsky, that you have to give her more weight than Rzheshevsky? --Nug (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a popularity contest... Both are important, but Senyavskaya's criticism is more detailed. -YMB29 (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
However WP:UNDUE applies. That's policy. Senyavskaya is just repeating similar things to what Rzheshevsky has said. If people want to read Senyavskaya in more detail they can go to the source cited in the reference section. --Nug (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
She is not repeating the same thing he says. Even if she did, I don't see what WP:UNDUE has to do with this. -YMB29 (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Both are referring to Beevor, and both are claiming he is repeating Goebbel's propaganda. Claiming WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT with respect to WP:UNDUE isn't a valid argument. You have not provided any justification for attributing more weight to Senyavskaya than Rzheshevsky. --Nug (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The only thing they say that is the same is that the accusations originate from Nazi propaganda. -YMB29 (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
You still haven't given a justification why Senyavskaya should be given more prominence over Rzheshevsky. --Nug (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
You still did not explain why she should not. -YMB29 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I've already pointed you to WP:UNDUE, the onus is on you to explain why WP:UNDUE doesn't apply in this case. --Nug (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
No, you did not explain how it applies here. -YMB29 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE applies everywhere, it is policy. I agreed with your view that mention of Kohl's wife in this article was undue, so don't suddenly claim you don't understand what WP:UNDUE means. --Nug (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I know what it means, but how does it apply to Senyavskaya? -YMB29 (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
You have given disproportionate coverage of Senyavskaya's views compared with other historians, see WP:BALASPS. --Nug (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
That is because Senyavskaya published more on the subject than Rzheshevsky. And you are ok with Naimark getting his own paragraph? -YMB29 (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think that is the case, Rzheshevsky has published several books. This thread User_talk:EdJohnston#Reverts_continue has come to my attention, the fact that you have been running a parallel discussion with an admin indicates your bad faith approach to this discussion generally and unwillingness to seek consensus. --Nug (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That is because of your reverts without consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
What reverts? I've been discussing it here on talk for the last couple of days. You seemed to have complained to an admin during that discussion, which indicates that you believe your arguments are weak and thus need admin intervention to help you get the upper hand. --Nug (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
To refresh your memory: [1][2]. And that is only in this article.
Also, don't get confused; I notified the admin about reverting in the other article. -YMB29 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but the first edit your cite[3] was not a revert, there was no previous identical version to which that edit reverts to. It was a regular bold edit per WP:BRD. The second edit[4] was a revert, but then you followed up with your own revert[5] before we began discussion on talk. The fact you subsequently attempted to get admin intervention while we were in the middle of discussing the issue on talk indicates an apparent level of duplicity which has poisoned any good faith that may have existed. --Nug (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Again the admin intervention was for the other article. Bring it up here over and over is disruptive.
Maybe it would have been wise for you to make changes only after some discussion. I mean if you claim that you were acting in good faith...
Also, a partial revert is still a revert. -YMB29 (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Well this was expected... You could of at least tried not to sound just like Iryna Harpy in the other article[6]. -YMB29 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would like to make two points here.
  1. The material about Hannelore Kohl (here) is completely unrelated to Russian historians. This may be "due" or not, but this should be discussed separately. There is no consensus whatsoever to exclude this material (which has been included previously by someone else).
  2. There is no doubt (per vast majority of sources) that such crimes indeed had happened on significant scale. Therefore, opinions by historians, who in essence deny everything, belong to WP:FRINGE/insignificant minority view. For example, we do not use people involved in Holocaust denial as sources about Holocaust. By the same reason, we should not cite Soviet crimes deniers on this page, but only in pages about themselves. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Your comparison to holocaust denial is way off. There is no consensus for the mass rape claims; this is just your opinion.
The text about Kohl's wife was added by Nug recently, but he then agreed that it does not belong here, see above.
You should read the previous discussion carefully and not make changes without consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
According to Gareev [7], "he had not even heard about sexual violence" [by the Soviet Army]". This has been explained. Now, speaking of Senyavskaya (the initial concern by Nug), this source is particularly terrible: she is trying to promote the ridiculous idea that Soviet soldiers were victimized by European women, because these women were so easy to rape (which undermined moral values of Soviet soldiers) and because these women transmitted venereal diseases [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. Where did you get that? -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
According to the article, «Все немки развратны. Они ничего не имеют против того, чтобы с ними спали» ... Немцы перед отступлением, а также сейчас, на занятой нами территории, стали на путь искусственного заражения сифилисом и триппером немецких женщин, с тем, чтобы создать крупные очаги для распространения венерических заболеваний среди военнослужащих Красной Армии», and so on, and so on. Such are sources you are using. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
So what is wrong with that? She did not write that herself, but is just quoting some primary sources. The quotes are part of a section devoted to primary sources. -YMB29 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, she is using Soviet-era primary sources to justify the following mutually exclusive ideas: (a) that rapes never happened; (b) it was OK to rape them because they deserved it, and (c) European women undermined moral of Soviet soldiers by giving up too easily and by transmitting them venereal diseases. That advocacy piece belongs to WP:FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This is just your interpretation of it. None of the points you made are true. The documents are brought up to challenge the Western image of the aggressive and primitive Soviet soldier and show that Soviet views on intimate relations were more conservation than the ones in many European countries. -YMB29 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, but direct quotation in Russian (see above) is very clear. She repeats statements like "all German women are whores" to justify her views that mass rapes were not at all committed (as stated in the beginning of her article) or that everything was consensual. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You are again misrepresenting what is written there. She does not say that about German women or that everything was consensual. I guess you see only what you want to... -YMB29 (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
How dare you claim that I misrepresented the source if she tells in the first phrase of her article that mass rapes by the Soviet Army is a myth that came from the Goebbels and ... Western propaganda? The whole chapter is entitled "According to the recipes by Goebbels" (Here is the quote: "Одним из самых распространенных антироссийских мифов на Западе сегодня является тема массовых изнасилований, якобы совершенных Красной Армией в 1945 г. в Европе. Свое начало он берет еще с конца войны – из геббельсовской пропаганды, а затем из публикаций бывших союзников по антигитлеровской коалиции). My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You should read carefully. I was not talking about this particular statement of yours. -YMB29 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would suggest (per WP:FRINGE) not include any views by people who declare a majority view to be "Goebbels propaganda". And this is not only Senyavskaya, but also some other modern Russian historians, such as Makhmut Gareev. He said [9] "Beevor and his yes-men are banal plagiarists. The real author of the myth of "aggressive sexuality" of our soldiers is Goebbels. Beevor, however, outdid Goebbels… The next lampoon about the Soviet soldier-liberator... I personally participated in the liberation of East Prussia. And I am saying as on confession: I’ve never heard then about sexual violence.", and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, we should rely on scholarly articles, not on Russian nationalist polemics. --Nug (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why Soviet Russia ?[edit]

The article currently starts: "War crimes perpetrated by the armed forces of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union..."

When the whole article deals with the Soviet Union, then why limit the scope regarding the armed forces to 'Soviet Russia'?

In absence of motivation for this, I will change the introduction to: "War crimes perpetrated by the the Soviet Union and its armed forces..."

Lklundin (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the change. Kierzek (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, done. Thanks for the feedback. Lklundin (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Despite the link, the country was called Russia until 1922. Soviet Russia is the best description of the country from 1917-1922, although it was used pejoratively later. TFD (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, since it gives a whole new meaning to the (now) former start. Although all the crimes may very well have happened at the hands of armed forces, some of those crimes were done on the direct order from the highest place. It was f.ex. Stalin himself who ordered the Katyn Massacre (according the sources we quote). So whether or not we want to mention any initial names of the Soviet Union, I think the start should continue to clearly indicate that the responsibility for the crimes includes the country as a whole (and thereby the person at the top, e.g. Stalin). Lklundin (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm a historian. This section brings up the crucial point I didn't like. Why all in one article? There's a lot of substance to cover in many of these events listed. I absolutely hate soviet apologism, but aggregating seems like a misguided attempt at casting a negative light on soviet history as a whole. Instead, there really should be separate articles for many of these events, with the "causal" factor carefully attributed. Some should be seen in a context of Russian/imperial aggression as a whole; Russian war crimes in the 1880s-1900s, in Manchuria, were equally repulsive as many of those listed. Others should be specifically attributed to Stalinist fervor, and there are quite a number of these in the 1920s and 1930s. The post-1960s ones are also the result of a typical dictator, but much less systematic. There's so much material here (unfortunately, Russia has probably committed more war crimes in the last 150 years than any other nation) that it really diminishes the importance of each event if you collect them all in an article without highlighting the causal mechanisms. (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

27 October 2015 expansion[edit]

Current article name is "Soviet war crimes" whilst the "war crimes" require the presence of "war" the expansion of this article beyond wartime should reflect the new content and be changed to a different core crime of international law, possibly the Soviet crimes against humanity committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population or an identifiable part of a population, per legal definition. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: The worst possible approach is to copy-paste text between different articles without external sources to confirm anything. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The glaring example of a completely unacceptable treatment of new material is the section "Polish Non-Jewish Victims" before World War II, which deals with the Genocide of Poles in the Soviet Union (1937-1938) also known as the Polish Operation of the NKVD. The opening line is absurd. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water of that sort of ignorance. Poeticbent talk 19:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that the user does not seem to understand the concept of GDFL and engages in mass violations of copyrights elsewhere. This article is turning into a bigger and bigger copy-paste dump-site of poorly cited material with every next edit. Please talk to me, Poeticbent talk 05:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This entire article is offensive red baiting.[edit]

There needs to be discussion about why this entry is even allowed on here. Why is Russiaphobia and red baiting tolerated now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:100:42A9:8D0E:F86B:885D:7D0D:4970 (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Don`t forget - Wiki is encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That's for World War II, where we can observe some cohension/relationship between the events.
This article is too disorganized. I'm not worried about the accusations of Russiaphobia or "red baiting" - these are shocking historical realities that have been censored, sometimes by pro-Soviet western academics/media, for decades. They deserve to be carefully recorded in a publicly accessible encyclopedia. What I don't agree is aggregating these atrocities in one place - and attributing it to the Red Army generally. Many of these war crimes are carried out under civilian orders or justifications, not military justifications. NKVD's executions aren't a war-related topic, even if some fraction of them occurred in wartime. They should be in separate pages, or at the very least, more of them should have their own main articles outside of this article. (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soviet war crimes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Poland 1939–1941[edit]

The number of deported people is too high. Soviet documents list less than 400 000 civilians. Plus POWs plus prisoners plus drafted plus migrating workers plus youth camps makes still much less than 1 million.Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)