In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
Redwood Dragon
IMAO
The Invisible Hand
ScrappleFace
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Movie Polls | Main | Eagleton on Dawkins »

October 23, 2006

Armies on the Rampage

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Everyone knows that conquering soldiers often go a little wild as they advance. But how wild is wild? Anthony Beevor estimates that more than two million German women were raped by Soviet troops during the closing days of World War II.

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at October 23, 2006




Comments

See my comment in the thread.

Posted by: Tat on October 23, 2006 6:40 PM



The old joke was that Hitler told his soldiers to go out and make more perfect, tall, blonde Aryans by raping women. So a German soldier did that in Paris. Afterwards he stood up and said, "Congratulations! In nine months you will have a German baby!" The woman, recomposing herself, said, "Congratulations! In a few weeks you will have the French Clap."

One wonders what happened to those children -- those who managed to be born. If the women were starving, many were probably not fertile and some probably died in childbirth. It would have taken a nun's morality to welcome such a baby.

I remember as an ignorant pre-teen reading about these rapes and one woman saying, "It wasn't so bad after I found a jar of cold cream." I couldn't imagine what she did with it.

It's not as though this has stopped. Think of the armies in Africa.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on October 23, 2006 8:20 PM



The facts of the Soviet rape of German women are indisputable.

This account, filled with the usual hoary feminist BS, written in a neo-Stalinist publication, the Guardian, is mind boggling in its stupidity. Susan Brownmiller is a liar, plain and simple. (And, yes, I've read her book on rape.) The feminist attempt to define traditional human relationships into a system of domination and rape is abysmal Marxist propaganda.

Let's face it, men. When Brownmiller's book came out in the mid-70s, we were young and stupid, and all too eager to believe that our fathers and grandfathers were brutes. What nonsense! In Woodstock, many men in their 60s and 70s continue to prattle on about this shit. They started talking that way to show how sensitive they were, in an effort to get laid. The women they wanted to impress would now just as soon cut off their balls and puree them in a blender.

What is to be made of such a foolish writer and such a bizarre attempt to wrest political and historic events into some sort of reliable ideological propaganda?

Soviet history as reported by this writer is a complete fabrication. The Bolsheviks, from the beginning of the revolution, sought to dismantle the family and to encourage complete sexual license. Among the first proclamations of the Bolsheviks was one that absolved all men from their marriage vows. Men were encouraged to abandon their wives and families and live like pigs. Sex Ed 101 would not have solved the total moral degredation of society wrought deliberably by the Bolsheviks.

The Soviets deliberately destroyed such concepts as religious belief, morality and family order, much as the Manhattan left is doing today.

The history of the rape of Berlin has been widely reported. This article is an embarassingly dumb attempt by a transparently "progressive" writer to argue that his dumb ass ideology is a solution to human problems that have existed for 10,000 years. In fact, dumb ass progressive ideology (better known as "Marxism") had a lot to do with the degredation of Russian moral character that led to the atrocities in Germany.

This writer is a total fool. In some blind way, this idiot is arguing that an even sterner application of Marxist ideology would solve a human dilemma that was worsened exponetially by the application of Marxist ideology by the Bolsheviks. How does a man get his head so squarely up his ass? Well, hell, you can hear this kind of dreary, moronic shit at any "progresive" gathering in Manhattan.

Sorry for being so blunt.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on October 23, 2006 9:38 PM



One wonders what happened to those children -- those who managed to be born. If the women were starving, many were probably not fertile and some probably died in childbirth. It would have taken a nun's morality to welcome such a baby.

I've read that pregnancy resulting from rape (by which I mean forcible rape, not statutory) is exceedingly rare. It's almost as if women's bodies have a instinctive way of preventing conception in such circumstances.

Posted by: Peter on October 23, 2006 10:07 PM



Considering German treatment of Russian and Eastern European civilians, the Russians were actually pretty humane. Comparatively speaking, of course. If the Russians had acted as Hitler did act and planned to continue acting if he won, they would have killed most of the population and/or deported them to slave labor camps. Instead they just turned a blind eye to rape for a year or so. Then they instituted backward and dreary but not murderous authoriarian states in Eastern Europe. The Germans got off easy considering they started a war of extermination with the East.

Posted by: MQ on October 24, 2006 12:32 AM



I of course don't mean to say that mass rape is not a serious war crime. But the Eastern Front in WWII seems to have been a war that consisted almost entirely of crimes. So one starts to compare them -- perhaps that shouldn't be done.

I'm confused by Shouting Thomas's diatribe above. The article is straightforward enough, the things Brownmiller says there are hard to quarrel with. Certainly there's no Dworkin-esque "all sex is rape" nonsense in there. And the Soviet repression of all private (including sexual / romantic) nonconformity in the 30s is well known -- Orwell bases a good part of the plot of "1984" on it. Actually, the biggest issue with the article to me was why it needed to be reported again, as it's already a well documented part of WWII history.

Posted by: MQ on October 24, 2006 12:44 AM



Michael – There is something stupidly wrongheaded about the article. There is a weird strain of pseudo-progressive writing that seems to want to assert that rape of women during wartime is an extra special bad thing that proves … altogether now … that war is bad and we should all be anti-war. One corollary to this is that women are always innocents.

I am not condoning rape. However, I have to admit that part of me feels that the German nation during World War II, by its own depraved actions against humanity, invited retribution. Many Germans, men and women, were not simplistically seduced or misled by Hitler, but willingly embraced the vile dream of Nazi domination. It is bizarre to read the author of the article talking about how “the events of 1945 reveal how thin the veneer of civilisation can be when there is little fear of retribution,” when the entire Nazi regime was founded upon the notion that non-Aryans were varieties of vermin who could be humiliated, raped, enslaved or murdered based on the whims of the Master Race.

But stepping back and looking at the article more coolly, it still seems foolish and lacks context. Although I accept that most of it is probably true, some details ring false, or reeks of a stupid and patronizing view of women (and men).

For example, one section of the article talks about supposedly gang-raped women in Königsberg begging “their attackers afterwards to put them out of their misery,” but this sounds like a bad 19th century novel in which a woman doesn’t want to live because she has had her purity sullied. I simply don’t believe this. Most women, most people, have a strong survival instinct even in the face of the most horrid acts done to them.

By not seriously dealing with German atrocities, which might even fit in with its thesis of rape as a special kind of war crime, the article loses credibility. The attempts to connect the actions of the Russian soldiers to Communist ideology or to feminist theory is laughable. Worse, the article doesn’t even mention how the Japanese Army made rape and forced prostitution of “comfort women” a formal part of its military policy.

Here’s a bit from Wikipedia on the fate of some comfort women:

“Sometimes to conceal the existence of their use of comfort women, retreating Japanese battalions would stash these women in secret caves and blast the entrance, causing landslides that sealed the cave. Many women reported having their uteruses rot from the diseases acquired from being raped by thousands of men over several years, at times requiring surgical removal.”

The 1974 film “Sandakan Number 8” (sadly, apparently not available on video) is a very moving story about the life of a Japanese woman sold into prostitution to a brothel in Borneo to serve as a comfort woman.

Peter -- Re: I've read that pregnancy resulting from rape (by which I mean forcible rape, not statutory) is exceedingly rare.

Honestly, at best, this sounds like an old wives tale. I doubt that there is anything that supports this.

Posted by: Alec on October 24, 2006 5:57 AM



At a time when Hungary is observing the 50th anniversary of the Soviet Repression in Budapest, where over 10,000 are estimated to have died, it is absurd to say that the Soviet imposed regimes in Eastern Europe were not murderous. The number of those killed in Eastern Europe by the Soviets and their Communist allies exceeds one million, by most estimates. No, the Eastern European puppet regimes were not as murderous as the Nazis, but few regimes rise to those levels, thank God. Also, to imply that young women, many of whom were not even born when Hitler came to power, deserved what they got, "Got off lightly" in fact, is repellant.

Also, the Soviets did repress sexual conduct, in the 1930's - but in the 1920's, they encouraged promiscuity, in an attempt to destroy the "Bourgeois Family". So, in a sense, both ST and MQ are right about this - each policy represented a different phase of the Revolution...

Posted by: tschafer on October 24, 2006 8:49 AM



Shouting Thomas: "How does a man get his head so squarely up his ass?"

Grad school!

Posted by: Brian on October 24, 2006 9:51 AM



MQ, if it were in my power, I'd line your ass up and have you shot. Maybe the Nazis did implement atrocities in the east. But they PALE beside the atrocities Stalin initiated on his own. Did you have your head up your ass when Robert Conquest wrote his books on Soviet crimes of the 1930s? It is estimated that 30 MILLION Russians died as a result of imprisonment, forced starvation and politically motivated excecutions BEFORE the first Nazi ever invaded Russia. Has it ever occurred to your warped brain that this very system could easily have been exported to the west? Indeed, it is likely that it would have been exported to the west had it not been for the resistance of the Nazis and, after them, the Americans. And another thing. When does it become acceptable to turn a blind eye to atrocities because they are "payback"? This is beyond disgusting and it's why feeble minded liberal shits like you allowed the Soviet Union to participate in the Nuremburg trials when they were even more guilty than the goddamn Germans. You liberal fools make me sick. Go to South Africa and live among those goons, since you seem to enjoy leftist revenge. You can experience it there up close and personal.

Posted by: Bob Grier on October 24, 2006 11:40 AM



Oh, yes, Alec, the Nazis just "appeared" on the scene, did they? There was no history prior to 1933 was there? Gee, I wonder if the rise of Hitler had anything to do with the Russian revolution? You think? And the mass slaughter of the 1920s and 1930s, you think that might have alarmed a few people in western Europe (the ones who could think)? And all those cushy "moderates" of the period...what were they doing to stop Stalin's atrocities?

Honestly, I wonder sometimes if anyone alive today has any interest in following the cause and effect of history. So listen up. The left has as much responsibility for Hitler's rise as do the right wingers. You can't have one without the other. It seems to me that choosing sides from the comfortable vantage point of 70 years is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by: Bob Grier on October 24, 2006 11:48 AM



Yes, Bob Grier, I get it. Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. Therefore you get a pass to abuse a couple of thoughtful people with whom you happen to disagree. You enjoyed that, didn't you? I suspect that your comments reveal more about you than they do about the topic at hand.

Posted by: Jonathan on October 24, 2006 12:33 PM



Oh dear, the old "Stalin or Hitler was worse" argument. This could go on for days. On the one hand, Stalin killed more people. On the other hand, he had more time to work. On the one hand, Hitler committed genocide. On the other hand, Stalin was cold-blooded enough to kill his own. Tough call.

The most sensible thing is to just say communism and fascism were both bad and leave it at that, I think.

Posted by: SFG on October 24, 2006 12:50 PM



Bob Grier - No, I don't think that the rise of Hitler had anything to do with the Russian Revolution.

By the way, although I think you can connect some of the rise of Third Reich to unresolved issues from World War I, even this kind of after-the-fact justification can go too far. But why do you think that Hitler was so adamant about having the defeated French sign the 1940 Armistice by using the same railway carriage in which the 1918 Armistice was signed by the defeated Germans at the conclusion of World War I? The railway carriage had been removed from a museum building and placed on the precise spot where it was located in 1918, and Hitler even sat in the same chair that Marshal Ferdinand Foch had sat in when he faced the defeated German representatives.

Some of this was largely theater, but the Germans had long used the myth of The Dolchstosslegende, and the supposedly ruinous economic terms of the 1918 treaty to nurse a grudge against Britain, France and the other Allied victors of the First World War.

But none of this adequately explains the viciousness of the Nazi regime, nor does linking it to the Great Depression or to the rise of Communism or even to the long history of European anti-Semitism.

I don’t think that history can be reduced to any simplistic determinism of cause and effect (nor to other deterministic theories like the simple-minded historical or economic “forces” so beloved by Marxists). And any kind of revisionism that tries to reduce World War II to “choosing” sides between the supposed “responsibility” of the left and right is not worth anyone’s time.

Posted by: Alec on October 24, 2006 2:02 PM



Yuck. The worst of humanity.

Posted by: annette on October 24, 2006 2:29 PM



I'm not sure what the controversy here is about. To the question, "Which army behaved the most abominably toward civilians, the German or the Russian?" then the answer — illogical as it might seem — is "both of them."

If there is a difference, it is that Germany of the Nazi period has (rightly) been condemned by history, but the postwar left has always had a contingent that was soft on Communism, even of the Stalinist variety. Their view of history usually ignores Soviet crimes against humanity; at most, if pressed, they'll acknowledge some excesses took place, but after all, they at least had the excuse of being in the anti-capitalist cause.

On campuses and in other left-wing strongholds, there are still plenty of people who think Stalinist Communism was just an unpopular (in the United States) system that militarists and Red-baiters used to promote the Cold War and anti-Communist "hysteria." The Soviets suffered heavy losses caused by Germany in the war, but so did the U.S. and Britain; the difference in the behavior of the occupying armies in Berlin says a lot.

Posted by: Rick Darby on October 24, 2006 4:00 PM



Yes. All of you are correct. Of course. How stupid of me to link Nazism with the rise of Communism. It's just so obvious that the Nazis rose up suddenly out of nowhere because Satan willed it. They just appeared one day and pretty soon Mephistopheles had the German people flummoxed into voting them into office. It's just all so damned simple, isn't it?

The problem with being marinated in post WW2 Triumphalism is that your brain can easily become short circuited.

Posted by: Bob Grier on October 24, 2006 5:51 PM



I second Bob Grier's wise and calmly reasoned analysis.

Posted by: Lea Luke on October 24, 2006 7:29 PM



Thank you, Rick Darby. Intelligence and knowledge prevail in the end.

Posted by: Bob Grier on October 24, 2006 7:54 PM



But seriously folks.

If nothing else it should be obvious that the Nazis borrowed considerably from their enemies(and sometime allies, google "berlin transit strike" +1932) in the Communist movement. "Armies" in conflict often come to resemble each other. The KPD and the perceived threat of the USSR/Comintern were part of the complex chemistry that brought Hitler to power.

Posted by: perroazul del norte on October 24, 2006 10:03 PM



Ah, Mr. Grier appears for the pro-Nazi side, reviving the old "Hitler as defender of Western civilization against the Eastern hordes" argument. This was popular among Nazi collaborators in the 30s and during WWII. I have no doubt that Mr. Grier is indeed the "line them up agains the wall and shoot them" type familiar from followers of both Hitler and Stalin.

Anyway, Stalin's body count is inflated by right-wingers here pumping up the numbers so that they can claim their enemy is "worse than Hitler!". The proper comparison for Stalin is e.g. Ivan the Terrible, a savage, paranoid, yet modernizing dictator who committed barbaric violence in a backward and primitive nation for pragmatic purposes. Stalin did succeed in modernizing his nation measurably over his reign. One should compare him to e.g. the savagery of Russian civil war (savage on both sides), and Russia's history of endemic misery and poverty. He was a relapse to "Asian despotism" that had previously appeared in Russian history. As a primitive despot he was successful in certain ways -- compare Russia's military performance in WWII to its collapse in WWI. When Stalin died in 1953 his country was wealthier and more secure than when he came into power in 1928. Yes, there was a much better way for Russia to advance -- Western capitalism would have served it much better, as classical Marxists like Plekhanov argued against Lenin (who was as bad or perhaps worse than Stalin IMO, but gets off with much less criticism somehow). But by the time Stalin came to power one can argue the die was cast.

And it is notable that when Stalin had total power over Eastern Europe he did not commit mass murder (contrary to some claims above, there is no evidence that Soviet rule over Eastern Europe was genocidal). Compare again to what Hitler had planned for the "inferior races" of the East, including not just the Jews but the Slavs.

Hitler on the other hand was a total madman, who took an advanced and cultured nation and dragged it backward into almost total destruction for no other purpose but his weird Wagnerian and ideological fantasies. Germany had so many more choices, more freedom. Hitler took a nation that could have been the cultural and industrial center of Europe (and allied with the rest of the West to be a bulwark against Soviet expansion), and turned it into a vehicle for living out his exterminationist fantasies.

Posted by: MQ on October 24, 2006 10:14 PM



P.S. I wouldn't line you up and shoot ya, Bob. In fact, you can hide in my basement if the wildly implausible left wing dictatorship that haunts your feverish fantasies ever does take over and starts to seek you out. Dictatorships are bad all around.

Posted by: MQ on October 24, 2006 10:24 PM



I have never defended Nazis in anything I ever wrote above or anywhere else, MQ. And you are just so damned blithe in your assessment of Stalin, aren't you? "Pragmatic purposes", "modernization"...you're the sick one, MQ. Why don't you call up Alexander Solzhenitsyn and explain how necessary that Russian revolution was...how Old Joe had to break a few eggs to make an omelette. In point of fact, you just lowered yourself another notch on my list of unacceptable humans. Like all liberals, you are constantly trying to wriggle out from under the consequences of bad ideas, both yours and your kissing cousins over in the leftist fever swamps. "Oh, well...another few hundred thousand dead in the cause of progress. Too bad. But we had to do it."

Get help, Emerson.

Posted by: Bob Grier on October 24, 2006 11:10 PM



PS: Robert Conquest, the greatest living scholar on the Bolshevik holocaust, is Jewish. Why don't you call him a "right winger" to his face? Maybe he just tried to cover up Hitler's crimes by inflating Stalin's. Yea, that must be the reason he wrote all those books.

Posted by: Bob Grier on October 24, 2006 11:13 PM



Good lord, the bunch of you are accusing each other of being Hitlers and Stalins?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on October 25, 2006 12:24 AM



MQ is Emerson?
Good god, why it didn't occur to me earlier? That totally makes sense now.

Posted by: Tat on October 25, 2006 9:19 AM



The comment sections of Blogs are simply not the best place in the world for angry people to hash out arguments about complex subjects. Everyone seems to become an instant hothead spouting wild statements and accusations.

Posted by: stephenesque on October 25, 2006 11:57 AM



As I understand it, the Soviet casualties in WWII were an order of magnitude larger than those of any other Allied nation - largely because of the differing input of labor and capital. American and British troops cleared mine fields with (expensive) tools and technology. Russian troops cleared mine fields by marching men across them and handing out medals to any survivors.

Posted by: Caethan on October 25, 2006 12:26 PM



Sorry, Caethan, that's nonsense. The Russians took immense casualities primarily because they engaged the Germans along a 1200-mile frontline for nearly four years. The war was won on the backs of Soviet soldiers more than any other group. That doesn't turn their vices into virtues, though.

Posted by: Intellectual Pariah on October 25, 2006 12:42 PM



Tat, I was simultaneously engaged with Emerson on another blog and simply got the names mixed up. Sorry for the confusion.

Stephenesque: Hothead? Moi?

MQ: Get help.

Posted by: Bob Grier on October 25, 2006 3:17 PM



Bob, mental hygiene note: don't get engaged with Emerson. I don't [anymore].

Re: subj.
I can understand your "plaque on both your houses" attitude; it's easy to be an American whose family in 200 years never experienced what hostile foregn occupation means in practice.
I can repeat what I said above in the linked thread: before expressing moral outrage for barbaric Russian hordes, consider atrocities so called "civilized" Germans committed in Belorussia, Ukraine, and Russia. What Stalin did to SU population is a different issue altogether.


Posted by: Tat on October 25, 2006 4:00 PM



Tat, are you aware that there were Slavic SS divisions in the German army? They were hell bent on killing anyone who resembled a communist and probably anyone resembling a Jew. They followed right behind the regular German army. They at least had some rationale behind who they victimized. Stalin had no such priority in the thirties. His orders were to terrorize for its own sake. ANYONE could be arrested and executed for any reason whatsoever just to fill up a regional death quota. At least in Nazi occupied lands if you were a communist or a jew or a gypsy, you knew you were going to be targeted and could take some type of evasive action. Under Stalin, there was no escaping the Terror. It applied to everyone. Everyone was a potential enemy of the people. I honestly don't know which system is worse. But I do know that Stalin was the greatest mass murderer in European history. By a long shot. And don't forget that he helped start WWII by invading Poland from the east. I am frankly irritated that so much media time dwells on the six million jews and practically little attention given to the tens of millions of other victims. This isn't right. Without men like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, we would hardly be aware of the Stalinist atrocities. (An atrocity by itself.) We haven't even discussed the Maoist and Cambodian genocides.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on October 25, 2006 5:17 PM



Tat: I haven't lost sight of German barbarism. But I still don't think attacking civilians can be condoned. Well disciplined armies don't engage in this type of activity unless their commanders give them the go ahead. The Russian command, who should have known better, actually did little to stop the carnage. I have heard that the order came from Stalin. The regular German army rarely engaged in this type of thing. The atrocities you and I read about were mainly the work of Himmler's people. The regular German army loathed Himmler and tried to distance themselves from his ilk. I don't think they tried hard enough, although the threat of a firing squad does tend to concentrate the mind wonderfully.

Posted by: Bob Grier on October 25, 2006 5:31 PM



Carlton, how else should I spell what i I already said?

Stalin's atrocities, let alone Maoist, Cambodian, etc are not relevant.

Original post just stated, without any historical perspective, some hugely inflated number of rapes "poor" Germans like to whine for world's pity with. [
Seriously, "some German women begged to be killed after being raped"? Is it some f*cking Victorian melodrama?]

I repeat - the argument is between "what Russian army did in Germany vs.what German Army did in Russia", simplistically speaking, and not what Stalin/Mao/Hitler/Elvis/your corner bodega proprietor did in his life and why.

Besides, your assertion that Jews or Gypsies or communists were given some kind of fair warning and were "able to take some kind of ivasive action" is offensive.
What Slavic SS divisions have to do with SovietArmy-perpetrated rapes? Are you saying Soviets were raping German women coz it's somehow in Russian character, no matter on what side they are? I can't find any reason or logic in your bag of disconnects.

Once again, you have very vague idea what you're talking about, if you base all you know on sensetionalist books.

Posted by: Tat on October 25, 2006 6:15 PM



Bob, actually, you might be right (that the order not to rein in marauders and rapists) came from Stalin; at the end of the War he was definitely shaking in his boots. There was documented attitude (although made public only in the last 20 or so years) in the Army, and after 5 years of bloody war, the Army was THE main force in the country, to overthrow the regime upon their return home. All those people who had lived through pre-War decades of horror, lies and hysteria and then met with reality of the Western Europe - and being the victors despite Stalin's failed leadership, they recognized their strength.
The tactic of unleashing the basest instincts as a precaution is a very familiar one in NKVD/KGB dealings; to compromize a potential enemy.

Posted by: Tat on October 25, 2006 6:39 PM



Let's not go postal, Tat. Calm thyself. The rape incidents are very well documented in "Prussian Nights" by Solzhenitsyn. That is an eye-witness account, not a sensationalist book.

You wrote: "before expressing moral outrage for barbaric Russian hordes, consider atrocities so called "civilized" Germans committed in Belorussia, Ukraine, and Russia." This is what prompted my question. I'm not being cynical, just wondering if you were aware that there were Slavic SS units. And there were. And they committed some horrible crimes against their own people, especially in the Ukraine.

You wrote: "your assertion that Jews or Gypsies or communists were given some kind of fair warning..." Well, what do you call "Mein Kampf"? It pretty well spelled out what was about to occur. I fail to see why that should be offensive. I'm not saying that justified some insensitive people in blaming the victims for not getting out of harm's way. Not by a long shot. But I am saying that these groups were aware that they were considered enemies and so at least some could try to get away. And many did, thank goodness. Einstein is the outstanding example. But in Stalinist Russia, no one knew if they were an "enemy" or not. You could be given a medal one day, then lined up and shot the next on a whim. So I stand by my statement. I honestly don't know what would have been a worse situation and I pray that you or I never have to find out.

You wrote: "What [did] Slavic SS divisions have to do with SovietArmy-perpetrated rapes?" Nothing. I was responding to the question above.

By the way, I have many Jewish friends who lost close relatives in the war. We have calmly discussed these issues many times over dinner without getting hostile. I hope that attitude will prevail here, no matter what the discussion is.

Posted by: Bob Grier on October 25, 2006 7:27 PM



Why does my post have Bob Grier's name on it? Oh, well...

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on October 25, 2006 9:23 PM



Charlton, I'm reading your mind! Actually, this happened to me some time ago as well. Not on this blogsite, but on another one. I'm told it's rare.

Where did you get your info re: Slavic SS units? I had not heard that one.

Posted by: Bob Grier on October 25, 2006 9:49 PM



Bob Grier, are you answering to my comment to Charlton Griffin now?

My head spins: who am I talking with?

I won't do arithmetics here, here's a first link that came for "civilian losses WWII". Go down to Soviet Union (Footnote 50). Just one sentence, so you can picture the magnitudes:
"...Civilian deaths totaled 15.9 million which included 1.5 million from military actions; 7.1 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 1.8 million deported to Germany for forced labor; and 5.5 million famine and disease deaths(including 3.0 million in the territory not under German occupation)..."

Note, nobody even counted rapes. What do you think, all those Ukranian women hung as partisans sympathizers, Belorussian women burned inside their homes, Jewish women executed in Baby Yar, wouldn't they prefer to just be raped?

Yes, I do know about SS division Galichina, that topic hits quite close: I have lived in Lvov for 8 yrs. I know about other similar units: it's a middle school history material. Why you stop only at Slavs, there were number of SS formations populated by local collaborators of various non-Germans, including so called "Soviet Muslims" (see this pro-SS site, f.ex).
Bandera and his division were not comitting crimes against "their own people" - they were killing Jews. Jews are not Ukranians or Russians (I know, it's hard to comprehend for an American). This is one more example of insulting things you say.
Another one - insistence on Jews and Gypsies being forewarned by "Mein Kampf". Frankly, I'm at loss what to tell you...go read Remarque...or Feuchtwanger...or Imre Kertesz...Max Sebald, even.

And the last thing: reserve your prayers for yourself. I and my family and my people had lived thru "situations", as you call them, that you only read in books about. Including the 1930's in Stalinist Ukraine, The Great War and the years of restoration afterwards.

Posted by: Tat on October 25, 2006 10:48 PM



"Where did you get your info re: Slavic SS units? I had not heard that one."

I've known about this for some time. When I lived in NYC, I used to roam those fabulous book stores and browse the tables. I was in my "WW2 period" back then. So I probably came across some books on the subject. You can check Google and probably find some reliable info. Beware of the neo-Nazi websites, though.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on October 25, 2006 10:50 PM



Tat, you are worked up about something that I never asserted. You are obviously sensitive about this. And after rereading my posts above, I think I know why. So I'm not going to feed your anger any more. And no, I am not a revisionist. You have your reasons for believing that one form of evil is preferable to another. And that one group of victims is more worthy of honor than another. This is apparently based on your personal experience from what I'm reading. But the body count from the serious research of scholars like Robert Conquest, Solzhenitsyn, and others tells a different tale. I'm sorry if this information offends you or anyone else. That was certainly not my intention. But the plain facts, as you note above, are out there.

I wish you well.

We've strayed too far from the original subject so I am done with this.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on October 25, 2006 11:32 PM



So, you're going to play "I'm taking the high ground" and not respond to what I spent 20 min writing? Not even look into my links? No attempt to answer my arguments? No apologies?


Nowhere I said I'm believing in one evil being more preferable than another. Nowhere I say rapes in Germany in the last months of the War didn't happen. Nowhere I defend rapists in the Soviet Army. Nowhere I defend Stalin and his regime.

"Plain fact" is that Germans started this war and in 4 years on Soviet territory perpetuated unimaginable crimes. 3 months of "revenge rapes" of German women, however disgusting, is nothing in comparison to that.

Bob, I provided a link on Foreign SS Divisions, including SS Galicia, in my previous comment. There were also SS divisions made up of Albanians, Turkestan and Crimean Muslims, etc. There were plenty of Nazi collaborators outside of SS ranks, like Ustashas (Croats), etc. You can find plenty information about them.

Posted by: Tatyana on October 26, 2006 12:14 AM



Aplogy for what, Tatyana? He only posted a few observations about the war. I'll tell you why you're upset. You didn't like the fact that him and some others have equated Stalin with Hitler. Hey, full disclosure here: are you Jewish? If so, your emotion may be clouding your judgement. In point of fact it is generally accepted that Stalin helped start WorldWar II and that he is the greater mass murderer of the era. It's also true that there were very high ranking Jewish members of the NKVD who carried out many of those atrocities noted above. Check it out here...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1033.htm

And personally, I think the NKVD were behind much of the revenge rapes by egging on those half civilized Siberian troops that reached eastern Germany. The reason you're screaming is so that no one notices the blood on your own hands. Why don't we have memorials to the victims of Stalinist genocide? Why so few films, books and memorials about it? Afraid the light of truth might get shone on someone else? If there is a god, he apparently hated everyone involved in this imbroglio because neither side seems to come off unscathed. You've got lot's of chutzpa, Tatyana, but this is the internet, not some controlled media where the argument goes in one direction all the time.

Posted by: Eagle on October 26, 2006 8:52 AM



Dear Eagle,
if you were a reasonable type, you'd browse thru my comments from the start; as you obviously haven't, let me expand a bit.
[dear Blowhards, please forgive me for taking up your comments' space]

I already answered that red herring of Stalin/Hitler comparison, and not once.
Before throwing unfounded accusations that generally make you look like an ass, please do yourself a favor and go read it. I've no time to endlessly repeat myself.

Thank you for a lesson on internet specifics, now I'm enlightened and will mend my sorry ways (if I wasn't oinking with merry laughter)

If you'd also go a bit back and open the link in my comment, the very first on this thread, you'll have no need to look for my nationality that you asumed I'm hiding, as well as so called Jewish bias (I know how I'll call YOUR bias, but that's subject for some other time)

As to the only argument that looks like anything in your patronising rant, about memorials to Stalin's victims that you don't have - let me bring you the good news, birdie: there ARE memorials, and films, and many, many books (you know, thingies made of lots of sewn together paper pages, with scads of little letters on them, in ink - before the offset of the Great Internet) published in Samizdat (look the the word up, I know you can) - in the country where Stalinism happened: where it is most needed. They even have a non-profit organization (called, not-surprisingly, A Memorial) that digs up the records of fallen victims in the secret archives of relevant organizations and makes them public, and brings much needed closure to the families. I have no idea whom you mean under "we", but whoever those "we" might be, they have something to learn from people who do research and fight for the truth in a society where it is much harder to do than here, a free speech democracy.

Let me recommend two book titles that will send you on the path of Knowledge (which is Power, as we all learned in elementary school):
-Evgenia Ginzburg, Into the whirlwind
-Varlam Shalamov, Kolyma Tales
I hope you'll find these accounts a useful primer.
Don't thank me, Thursday is my charity day.

Posted by: Tat on October 26, 2006 4:29 PM



Oh, boy, I just realized - I missed the best part:
The reason you're screaming is so that no one notices the blood on your own hands.


I take back my previous post.

Some people don't deserve charity.

Posted by: Tat on October 26, 2006 5:30 PM



2 Blowhards are to be praised for garnering so many comments from such a short post. Lunatics, asylum, etc.

Posted by: stephenesque on October 26, 2006 10:59 PM



"Why don't you call up Alexander Solzhenitsyn and explain how necessary that Russian revolution was...how Old Joe had to break a few eggs to make an omelette."

Funny response to a post where I said that Western capitalism would have been preferable to the Russian Revolution and that Lenin was a tyrant. Oh, well, from the moment that someone draws any parallel between Stalin and American liberals you know they're insane.

Posted by: MQ on October 27, 2006 10:16 PM



This says it all:

http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/051105_stalin.htm

Posted by: Eagle on November 16, 2006 8:34 AM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?