Did The Red Army Really Rape 2 Million Girls & Women During W.W. II??? [Archive]

View Full Version : Did The Red Army Really Rape 2 Million Girls & Women During W.W. II???

Pages : [1] 2

Rakhmetov

27th May 2011, 18:46

This statement probably belongs in the same trash can with the remark that communists killed 100 million people. But the "experts" say the Red Army gang-raped so many German women out of anger because the Nazis killed 26 million Soviet citizens and raped 10 million Soviet girls and women. What do you guys and gals think about all this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape#World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#Mass_rapes_2

Red Army After the German armed forces had surrendered, the half of Germany under Soviet Union occupation was split roughly in half and one part was allocated for temporary Polish administration (see Former eastern territories of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_eastern_territories_of_Germany)). In order to ensure that the German territory under communist Polish administration would become permanently de-facto Polish territory, the Polish communists ordered that the German population be expelled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during _and_after_World_War_II) "by whatever means necessary".[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape#cite_note-Occupation1-92) The communist Polish administrators of the occupied territories as a consequence did little to protect the German population from Polish and Russian rapists.[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape#cite_note-Occupation1-92) "Even the Soviets expressed shock at the Poles’ behavior. Polish soldiers, stated one report, 'relate to German women as to free booty'."[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape#cite_note-Occupation1-92)
During the war Polish women were victims of brutal mass rapes by Soviet[94] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape#cite_note-The_Social_Inheritance_of_the_Holocaust1-93)[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape#cite_note-94) soldiers. Polish sources claim that there are cases of mass rapes in Polish cities taken by the Red Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army). It is reported that in Kraków (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak%C3%B3w) Soviet occupation brought mass rapes of Polish women and girls, as well as plunder of all private property by Soviet soldiers. Reportedly the scale of the attacks prompted communists installed by Soviets to prepare a letter of protest to Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) while masses in churches were held in expectation of Soviet withdrawal.[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape#cite_note-Alma-95)
At the end of World War II, Red Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_atrocities#Rapes_and_pacifications) soldiers are estimated to have raped around 2,000,000 German women and girls.[97] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape#cite_note-96)[98] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape#cite_note-97) Norman Naimark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Naimark) writes in "The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949." that although the exact number of women and girls who were raped by members of the Red Army in the months preceding and years following the capitulation will never be known, their numbers are likely in the hundreds of thousands, quite possibly as high as the 2,000,000 victims estimate made by Barbara Johr, in "Befreier und Befreite". Many of these victims were raped repeatedly. Antony Beevor estimates that up to half the victims were victims of gang rapes. Naimark states that not only did each victim have to carry the trauma with her for the rest of her days, it inflicted a massive collective trauma on the East German nation. Naimark concludes "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."[99] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape#cite_note-98) German women who became pregnant after being raped by Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet) soldiers in World War II were invariably denied abortion to further humiliate them as to carry an unwanted child.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] As a result, according to the book Berlin: The Downfall, 1945 by Antony Beevor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Beevor), some 90% of raped Berlin women in 1945 had venereal diseases as results of these consequential rapes and 3.7% of all children born in Germany from 1945 to 1946 had Russian fathers. The history behind this particular rape of the German women by the Soviet troops was considered a taboo topic until 1992. (See also Red Army atrocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_atrocities).)
In Romania, the writer Mihail Sebastian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihail_Sebastian) described, that in 1944 Russian soldiers raped local women.

Highfructosecornsyrup

27th May 2011, 19:25

There are numerous accounts written by women who were raped, autobiographies and surviving journals etc if your suspicious of the accounts of 'experts'. One of the most famous primary accounts is called 'A Woman in Berlin'.

I haven't read much analysis on the origins and interpretations of the mass rapes, and if anyone has I'd be interested to know what some good readings are. But I doubt many would be convinced that they could be either justified or explained as being 'revenge rape'.

Tommy4ever

27th May 2011, 20:55

Well. From accounts of the victims and even reports by Red Army soldiers themselves it is pretty clear that mass rapes did happen. But, its basically impossible to measure just how many women and girls were raped and how often it happened.

Robocommie

27th May 2011, 21:13

War's a pretty fucked up thing, even if it's a war to defend your country.

jake williams

27th May 2011, 21:23

War's a pretty fucked up thing, even if it's a war to defend your country.
Without justifying or minimizing what atrocities did go on, this is absolutely correct. Wars are fucking awful in every sense. It wouldn't be surprising to see atrocities, or their scale, simply fabricated, because this certainly goes on. But so do the atrocities, and throwing millions of armed young men into a foreign country and telling them to destroy it is going to have horrible effects.

Imposter Marxist

27th May 2011, 21:28

Rape is a reality of war. Every war. Also, it was a tool used to break the "Pureblood" Nazi ideology.

Revolutionary armies should take extra care in training their men in a way to eliminate or reduce drasticly this product of war. I know the Red Army really didn't have the opportunity for that in many cases, but in the future something like this should never happen.

At the end of the day, rape is the most disgusting thing I can think of. Hell, I was one of the first members in the "Shoot them in the balls" group.
As for that many million, I don't know enough about the topic to say anything.

Aspiring Humanist

27th May 2011, 21:28

Testosterone fueled young men that don't know if they're going home or not tend to do pretty barbaric things.

(I don't support it and thats no excuse for rape obviously, but rape in war is a pretty widespread problem thats not limited to one group or the other)

CitizenSmith

27th May 2011, 21:30

Rape has been used as a weapon through history, as a way to break the morale of your enemy. The eastern front was host to atrocities on both sides, and rape was use by both sides in the war, and while it was not offically condonden by either side, it certainly took place. Rape is horrific, regardless of the number of victims.

Rooster

27th May 2011, 21:52

Ismail

27th May 2011, 21:54

I contend that the USSR's participation in the war had little to do with international socialism and a lot to do with patriotic nationalism. I don't know how people can justify it by saying that "hey, war is war". Yeah, war might be war, but with a socialist country, that shit shouldn't happen.Actually in this instance rape was used as a "weapon" of sorts to demoralize the homefront. Many Red Army types would scream "FASCIST" or something while raping women. It's worth noting that the famed Soviet writer Ilya Ehrenberg wrote in 1942 the following (quoted in Nemesis at Potsdam, pp. 65-66, etc.):

The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day... If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another—there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German—that is your grandmother's request. Kill the German—that is your child's prayer. Kill the German—that is your motherland's loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.Stalin had to criticize Ehrenberg for writing that, but many Red Army soldiers shared the view. They viewed Germans as perpetually committed to fascism, and that nothing less than the destruction of Germans as a unified nation would change that. Even some exiled German communists shared similar sentiments.

MIM had a thing on this: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/countries/germany/imperialismoverthrown.html

Nolan

27th May 2011, 21:57

Old Mole

27th May 2011, 22:08

I dont know how you could measure that but in what war does rape not occur? Btw the red army was an unruly lot, many of the soldiers lived in very bad conditions and in great danger. I think that is one of the reasons that gruesome crimes were commited even if most of the soldiers probably fought the fascists with good intentions. When the red army came to Yugoslavia they were a constant problem for Tito. In contrast with his disciplined partisans they were far from home, war tired, undisciplined boys. At one time Tito's partisans received a gift from the russians that was food stolen from liberated areas were the peasants were supportive of the partisans cause. Partisans were actually searching all over for the plunderers until they revealed themselves in the shape of wellmeaning russians.

S.Artesian

27th May 2011, 23:07

If rape was a policy or a tool of the Red Army, as many are suggesting, then it cannot be attributed to "War is Hell," "It happens in all wars."

It is the product of the leadership, and the organization of the Red Army if the rapes occurred as these posters suggest, and the leadership, the officers from the line to the staff levels are accountable.

If rapes occurred on a mass level but were not "planned" or "strategized" then you have a massive breakdown in discipline, and I don't think the Red Army made it to Berlin without having the utmost discipline.

So.... so no rationalizations for rape should be offered or can be accepted.

I have never studied this issue, and I wouldn't even guess as to the validity of the claims, but incidents of rape are not simply "testosterone driven young men" letting off steam or "taking revenge."

Yeah, put yourself in the shoes of the "typical" Soviet soldier. First off, how many of these soldiers in Germany were from, or had families in the areas taken by the Germans in their onslaught? Secondly, how many from these areas were actually involved in rape?

How many of the soldiers in the occupation of Germany were from areas east of Moscow? From "Asian Russia"?

My guess is, and it's a guess, that those who had family, sisters, wives, daughters, mothers who suffered under the Nazi occupation were committed to liberating those areas, killing every German soldier, and crushing the ability of Germany to ever field an army again. I don't think those who had known so much suffering actually wanted to inflict that same suffering, that same barbarism on German women, as that would accomplish nothing.

the last donut of the night

27th May 2011, 23:25

Ismail

27th May 2011, 23:49

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 00:25

According to Geoffrey Roberts in Stalin's Wars, the amount of rapes was somewhere in between the "tens of thousands" to the "low millions." (p. 263.) At the same time Roberts notes that, "While appalling, the contemporary public and political impact of the Red Army rapes should not be exaggerated. In 1945 the Red Army was almost universally admired in the allied world... The first Nazi death camp had been overrun by the Red Army at Majdenark in July 1944. At the end of January 1945 Auschwitz fell to the Red Army, and then the camps at Belzac, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka - surely the darkest roll call of horror in the annals of human existence." (p. 265.) He notes that Stalin chalked up the rapes in private discussions to the anger and exhaustion of the Soviet soldiers.

WTF? Because the Red Army liberated death camps, we should not "exaggerate" rapes that occurred between tens of thousands of times and the "low millions" of times?

This is what is so fucking, completely fucking crazy about this type of discussion-- the attempt to "balance" rape against liberating death camps.

So let's take this down to the level of the individual Red Army soldier. He rapes a woman. In his defense he says, "But I participated in the liberation of Treblinka."

Oh, in that case, everything's OK. Sorry we interfered with your expression of grief and anger.

Nuts.

Ismail

28th May 2011, 00:50

Roberts was noting that the image of the Red Army basically just existing to murder and/or rape people wasn't entirely accurate, and also notes that the contemporary view of the Red Army was that of a force which defeated Nazism, not "that force which went around raping women."

For what it's worth, David Irving (who as we all know is quite reactionary and isn't fond of communists) in his book Uprising! (about Hungary) notes interviews with Hungarian émigrés in the USA (conducted "as part of Columbia University's Oral History Project").

"A typical Hungarian motor-car engineer learned that his pretty secretary and her daughter had been raped by twelve Russians; and in a relative’s villa they raped a woman and gunned down her mother and child when they tried to protect her."

In an odder case, one (evidently pretty reactionary) émigré described the arrival of Russian troops like so: "When the Russians came, their clothing was indescribably grimy. They were filthy. It was not just because of the war, they were dirty from nature. They smelt – they stank. They acted like animals. They would burst into an apartment and throw in a hand grenade without warning. They could not talk, just grunt. They pointed their guns at people and if they didn’t get the desired response, they just shot them... They thought that toothpaste was some kind of jelly and they spread it on their bread. They drank eau-de-Cologne. The telephone scared them and they fired their guns at it. They washed in the toilet. They did not know what a bathtub was for. They were so scared of the water running out of the wall that they shot at the shower."

So yeah, wasn't just Germany, and it evidently left a mark.

khad

28th May 2011, 00:53

These claims are as exaggerated as the German right's perpetual insistence on the so-called "German genocide" caused by expulsions of Germans from countries like Poland and Hungary. Did Germans die of starvation and exposure? Certainly, but nowhere near the claimed 2 million. In fact, the most recent estimates put the number closer to 400,000.

Similarly, the claim of 2 million rapes are extrapolated based on postwar abortion cases. Funny thing about those cases. Rape was essentially a no-questions asked pass, and in every case the claim invariably involved a foreign soldier or occupier. I haven't even heard of a claim of German-on-German rape, which is funny if you think about it--all the German rapists just went on vacation in the 5 years following the war, apparently. Nor is there accounting for the fact that people simply had abortions because of the dire material conditions in war-torn Germany.

Oh, and BTW, abortion was illegal in West Germany, with only a few exceptions. You can take a guess at what those exceptions were.

After World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), abortion remained broadly illegal in both East Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany) and West Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany), with West Germany retaining the legal situation of 1927 while East Germany passed a slightly more encompassing set of exceptions in 1950. The legal requirements in the West were extremely strict, and often led women to seek abortions elsewhere, particularly in the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands).To summarize:

1. Did rapes happen?

Of course

2. Was the number as high as 2 million?

Most likely not

3. Did the Soviet Army condone such behavior?

That some 4000 officers (I've only read the figure for officers) were brought to trial after the war for alleged crimes against civilians says otherwise.

WTF? Because the Red Army liberated death camps, we should not "exaggerate" rapes that occurred between tens of thousands of times and the "low millions" of times?

This is what is so fucking, completely fucking crazy about this type of discussion-- the attempt to "balance" rape against liberating death camps.

So let's take this down to the level of the individual Red Army soldier. He rapes a woman. In his defense he says, "But I participated in the liberation of Treblinka."

Oh, in that case, everything's OK. Sorry we interfered with your expression of grief and anger.

Nuts.

There are some right wing sob stories I take with a grain of salt. There are specific political forces in Germany that have an interest in hyping up the so-called "German genocide" and the "millions" of rapes, and those same forces are the ones who seek to minimize Germany's role in WW2 by suggesting a kind of moral equivalency.

Many years back, a soldier's memoir prompted an outraged backlash in Germany because it described how the Wehrmacht raped their way across Eastern Europe. Don't you find it odd that Germans never want to talk about their own rapists?

#FF0000

28th May 2011, 00:57

I think it's safe to say that a looot of rape did happen. How much exactly is hard to say, but like another user said, it's still horrific.

I mean, just considering how brutal the Eastern Front was, it's practically a given.

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 01:33

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 01:36

Born in the USSR

28th May 2011, 02:03

"Soviet soldiers raped women" - they din this into ears all the time.It turnes out that allied soldiers didn't rape women.It turnes out that Soviet soldiers were communist barbarians - allied soldiers were noble bourgeois.

Don't you see it is a stupid propaghanda?

Were there crimes at the war?Of course.During the war were mobilized 34,5 millions,there were different people including amnestied criminals.But there were very strikt laws.I remember my father told me how a lieutenant in Poland was executed.He needed a horse for artillery carriages and he took it forscibly from a peasant having paid him money.The peasant complained to a military administration and the lieutenant was shot.

HEAD ICE

28th May 2011, 02:25

holy shit at this thread. "yup, war sucks, what the hell are ya gonna do." thank you for reminding me why I am a communist.

Aurora

28th May 2011, 02:26

HEAD ICE

28th May 2011, 02:29

lmao "yeah the red army did some rapes here and there but they liberated the concentration camps" fuck outta here hahhaa

HEAD ICE

28th May 2011, 03:05

Well what the hell do you want? Do you want us to wail and gnash our teeth at the horror of a war which happened before our mothers and fathers were even born? Do you want us to shake our fists at the sky and outrageously rant and rave about how rape is horrible and how quick we'd all be to machine gun the soldiers who do it, just to make you feel more comfortable about our reaction to it?

No, the fact is that this is what war is. I don't say this to minimize or excuse the rape, I say this to emphasize the ugliness of war. Any decent person hates war and everything that comes with it. This is one reason why we're ALL communists, to bring an end to the fucking thing. What is fucking absurd is this notion of bourgeois armies and revolutionary armies, as if wars fought by socialists can be expected to somehow be more pleasant. The fact is that war is hell, it is an organized process of the wholesale slaughter of human beings. It's industrialized murder. Don't try and pretty that shit up, or get any romantic notions of how a truly Red army would do it so much nicer.

Any attempt to put this on the Soviet Union is pretty intensely lame, for reasons khad pointed out, as well as the fact that it's just trying to score ideological points on the ugly reality of history.

lol you are reaching hard for that rep

Ismail

28th May 2011, 03:06

I wonder how things were organised in the civil war.Well some Red Army forces engaged in anti-Jewish pogroms and had to be reined in by the Cheka.

Being in the Army does not automatically make you a great communist, especially not in the conditions of the civil war or WWII.

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 03:10

lol you are reaching hard for that rep

I just deleted that message, solely to prevent myself from getting one single point of rep. I'll ask that no-one rep this one either.

Idiot.

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 04:27

I just deleted that message, solely to prevent myself from getting one single point of rep. I'll ask that no-one rep this one either.

Idiot.

You can delete anything you want, but that post was pretty lame. "War is hell," "This is what happens in war" "Don't try and pretty it up." WTF. Any of those things could have been used to justify what the Nazis did; what Calley did in My Lai; what was done if Fallujah, or Gaza, or whatever.

Not all soldiers commit rape. Not all officers will excuse or tolerate rape. If there are facts to be developed, then produce the facts. If you want to engage in ideological explanations, all you're doing, despite your intentions, is providing a back door rationalization.

pranabjyoti

28th May 2011, 04:56

My point was that we don't "balance" rapes by saying-- oh well, he's a rapist, but he helped liberate Treblinka. That's just nuts.

And as I stated earlier I have never studied the issue and do not know what frequency of rape occurred, nor do I know if it was the conscious policy of the fSU.
Ya, whatever happened to them and their near and dear ones and how much destruction and misery they had to face, RED ARMY should always act like an angel coming from heaven. Otherwise, CRITICS are ready with swords in hand.

PhoenixAsh

28th May 2011, 05:07

Considering the toll the German government took on Soviet society, it was inevitable that some Soviet occupation troops would take it out on German civilians. Rape is one thing that always happens.

It was the bloodiest war in history, many of your family, friends, and neighbors have been killed, your hometown has been leveled, and you've finally chased the rat back to Germany and whipped him. Put yourself in the shoes of a typical Soviet soldier.

Wait..what? O_o

Let me see if I get this straigh...you are saying that under certain circumstances raping women and girls who had nothing to do with anything that happened...is excusable?

rrrright.

wanna think about at for another sec???

Sir Comradical

28th May 2011, 05:09

Any Red Army soldier caught in the act should have been taken out and shot. Rape might be acceptable for bourgeois armies but a so-called revolutionary army should hold itself to a higher standard.
I wonder how things were organised in the civil war.

I don't think Stalin was too worried to be honest.

"Does Djilas, who is himself a writer, not know what human suffering and the human heart are? Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?"

Has fun with a woman. Hmmm.

Bad Grrrl Agro

28th May 2011, 05:28

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 05:53

You can delete anything you want, but that post was pretty lame. "War is hell," "This is what happens in war" "Don't try and pretty it up." WTF. Any of those things could have been used to justify what the Nazis did; what Calley did in My Lai; what was done if Fallujah, or Gaza, or whatever.

Not all soldiers commit rape. Not all officers will excuse or tolerate rape. If there are facts to be developed, then produce the facts. If you want to engage in ideological explanations, all you're doing, despite your intentions, is providing a back door rationalization.

Look, you can shoehorn whatever sentiments or motivations you want onto my post, but what I think is even more dangerous is encouraging this myth of the noble, just war, the "purity of arms." You accuse me of justifying war; I don't really believe war is justifiable at all. As revolutionaries we should shed our illusions about what war is, and not lie to ourselves about how "our" wars will be more humane simply because our ideology is better. War doesn't work that way. It won't ever work that way, and we have to try and avoid it as much as we can because of it.

My first post in this thread was originally me trying to explain the likely reasons why it happened, while also trying to make it clear that war in general is fucked up. There's a lot of folks who have these fucked up notions that Slavs have a brutal tendency towards rape, largely because of the Red Army's reputation in WWII, I imagine. In the end, I decided I didn't want to touch any of that shit with a ten-foot-pole because I didn't want anyone to accuse me of a back door rationalization of rape and war crimes, so I just left it as "War is a pretty fucked up thing" and thought it was pretty clear my comments were intended to be anti-war and not pro-rape or pro-Red Army. Fucking ironic then, that I should find myself lumped in by both you and Stagger Lee of trying to do exactly that.

I mean what do you expect me to say instead? Condemn the Red Army for acting without chivalry, and promote this Augustinian concept of Just War? It's as much bullshit as when Israel talks about the purity of arms.

red cat

28th May 2011, 05:55

While I don't really object to killing civilians per se, I believe that rapists should be killed.

Also note that the fascist government of the Third Reich blatantly viewed women as aryan baby making machines. Women were not viewed as equals to men. So if you are fighting against a fascist war machine, do you really want to pick an oppressed group within their society and attack them?

Degree and type of oppression matter. A well cared for Nazi woman was hardly as oppressed as a half starving Russian soldier who lost his entire family to the Nazi invasion.

Rape is never excusable as a crime, but in this particular situation the punishment should have been short-term imprisonment or extra hours of service, along with re-education, only with exception of special cases.

Sir Comradical

28th May 2011, 05:58

Degree and type of oppression matter. A well cared for Nazi woman was hardly as oppressed as a half starving Russian soldier who lost his entire family to the Nazi invasion.

Rape is never excusable as a crime, but in this particular situation the punishment should have been short-term imprisonment or extra hours of service, along with re-education, only with exception of special cases.

I think you mean German woman.

∞

28th May 2011, 06:00

Why couldn't they just fap?

Sir Comradical

28th May 2011, 06:03

Why couldn't they just fap?

Too cold...

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 06:05

While I don't really object to killing civilians per se

How can you not object to the killing of civilians?

∞

28th May 2011, 06:05

Too cold...

No, Im not trying to offend ...Im actually serious. Why should they go through the trouble of something as bad as rape, when they can masturbate?

red cat

28th May 2011, 06:06

I think you mean German woman.

I meant the women who were friends, relatives, or in passive support of Nazis.

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 06:07

No, Im not trying to offend ...Im actually serious. Why should they go through the trouble of something as bad as rape, when they can masturbate?

Because rape isn't about sex, generally it's about power and domination.

Sir Comradical

28th May 2011, 06:07

No, Im not trying to offend ...Im actually serious. Why should they go through the trouble of something as bad as rape, when they can masturbate?

Because masturbation is revisionist.

Sir Comradical

28th May 2011, 06:08

I meant the women who were friends, relatives, or in passive support of Nazis.

Ohh right. Yeah you may have a point.

∞

28th May 2011, 06:11

Because rape isn't about sex, generally it's about power and domination.

Then imagine all the civilians they must've killed...O_O

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 06:12

Look, you can shoehorn whatever sentiments or motivations you want onto my post, but what I think is even more dangerous is encouraging this myth of the noble, just war, the "purity of arms." You accuse me of justifying war; I don't really believe war is justifiable at all. As revolutionaries we should shed our illusions about what war is, and not lie to ourselves about how "our" wars will be more humane simply because our ideology is better. War doesn't work that way. It won't ever work that way, and we have to try and avoid it as much as we can because of it.

My first post in this thread was originally me trying to explain the likely reasons why it happened, while also trying to make it clear that war in general is fucked up. There's a lot of folks who have these fucked up notions that Slavs have a brutal tendency towards rape, largely because of the Red Army's reputation in WWII, I imagine. In the end, I decided I didn't want to touch any of that shit with a ten-foot-pole because I didn't want anyone to accuse me of a back door rationalization of rape and war crimes, so I just left it as "War is a pretty fucked up thing" and thought it was pretty clear my comments were intended to be anti-war and not pro-rape or pro-Red Army. Fucking ironic then, that I should find myself lumped in by both you and Stagger Lee of trying to do exactly that.

I mean what do you expect me to say instead? Condemn the Red Army for acting without chivalry, and promote this Augustinian concept of Just War? It's as much bullshit as when Israel talks about the purity of arms.

I'm not shoe-horning anything. I didn't accuse of justifying war. I said your argument becomes a back-door rationalization for rape, massacre of unarmed people, all that stuff generally considered to be a war crime.

Nothing ironic about how your statement is taken. It's clearly part of the "shit happens" argument about "life during wartime." I don't think you mean to excuse rape, but your argument "no war is justifiable" has little enough to do with the issue at hand.

If you want to adopt the pacifist stance-- "no war is justifiable"-- go right ahead. But that wasn't the issue. And you're wrong about that. Some wars are justifiable. The wars of the oppressed against their oppressors is justified; the war of the exploited against the exploiters is justified. Raping the oppressor or the exploiter is not justified, Eldridge Cleaver to the contrary not withstanding.

∞

28th May 2011, 06:15

I'm not shoe-horning anything. I didn't accuse of justifying war. I said your argument becomes a back-door rationalization for rape, massacre of unarmed people, all that stuff generally considered to be a war crime.

Nothing ironic about how your statement is taken. It's clearly part of the "shit happens" argument about "life during wartime." I don't think you mean to excuse rape, but your argument "no war is justifiable" has little enough to do with the issue at hand.

If you want to adopt the pacifist stance-- "no war is justifiable"-- go right ahead. But that wasn't the issue. And you're wrong about that. Some wars are justifiable. The wars of the oppressed against their oppressors is justified; the war of the exploited against the exploiters is justified. Raping the oppressor or the exploiter is not justified, Eldridge Cleaver to the contrary not withstanding.

But German civilians are neither oppressor nor exploitors.

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 06:17

I'm not shoe-horning anything. I didn't accuse of justifying war. I said your argument becomes a back-door rationalization for rape, massacre of unarmed people, all that stuff generally considered to be a war crime.

Hey, if someone is enough of an asshole to justify My Lai or the Rape of Nanking because war is fucked up, then they're an asshole. I can't do anything about that. Am I supposed to deny that war is hell? Seriously, what do you want from me? I'm not going to belittle the victims by saying that it happened because the Red Army was an insufficiently proletarian organization, or whatever else.

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 06:19

But German civilians are neither oppressor nor exploitors.

WTF? I was referring to Robos general remark that no war is justified. Actually I don't think justification is even an issue. Necessity is the issue. And the necessity to overthrow exploitation means civil war.

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 06:29

Hey, if someone is enough of an asshole to justify My Lai or the Rape of Nanking because war is fucked up, then they're an asshole. I can't do anything about that. Am I supposed to deny that war is hell? Seriously, what do you want from me? I'm not going to belittle the victims by saying that it happened because the Red Army was an insufficiently proletarian organization, or whatever else.

I don't want anything from you, believe me. But perhaps you forgot what you posted and then removed:

Well what the hell do you want? Do you want us to wail and gnash our teeth at the horror of a war which happened before our mothers and fathers were even born? Do you want us to shake our fists at the sky and outrageously rant and rave about how rape is horrible and how quick we'd all be to machine gun the soldiers who do it, just to make you feel more comfortable about our reaction to it?

No, the fact is that this is what war is. I don't say this to minimize or excuse the rape, I say this to emphasize the ugliness of war. Any decent person hates war and everything that comes with it. This is one reason why we're ALL communists, to bring an end to the fucking thing. What is fucking absurd is this notion of bourgeois armies and revolutionary armies, as if wars fought by socialists can be expected to somehow be more pleasant. The fact is that war is hell, it is an organized process of the wholesale slaughter of human beings. It's industrialized murder. Don't try and pretty that shit up, or get any romantic notions of how a truly Red army would do it so much nicer.

Well, yeah, I expect a revolutionary army to conduct itself with revolutionary discipline and not act like a bourgeois imperialist army, defiling people, peoples' cultures, religions, etc. simply because it can. Sue me.

Maceo in the Cuban revolutionary struggles of the 19th century was adamant in demanding that mistreatment of slaveholders' families not be tolerated.

If you want to defend the Red Army because the mass rapes did not happen on the scale so claimed, then go ahead and do that. If you want to claim that when rapes did occur, they were an aberration, go right ahead. But don't try and spin the issue by saying "war is hell."

War is hell on imperialist soldiers too. Big Fucking Deal. And look how the conquistadors suffered in the New World. So fucking what?

pranabjyoti

28th May 2011, 06:29

But German civilians are neither oppressor nor exploitors.
They were the supporters and certainly take a share of the fruits of Nazi victory over other countries. So, on defeat, they have to share the consequences. As per a common proverb here in India "committing a crime and remaining silent while you are an eye-witness are offense of same degree". They remained silent during the period of Nazi atrocity on people of the other countries, so they also have their share too.

pranabjyoti

28th May 2011, 06:33

Well, yeah, I expect a revolutionary army to conduct itself with revolutionary discipline and not act like a bourgeois imperialist army, defiling people, peoples' cultures, religions, etc. simply because it can. Sue me.

Maceo in the Cuban revolutionary struggles of the 19th century was adamant in demanding that mistreatment of slaveholders' families not be tolerated.

If you want to defend the Red Army because the mass rapes did not happen on the scale so claimed, then go ahead and do that. If you want to claim that when rapes did occur, they were an aberration, go right ahead. But don't try and spin the issue by saying "war is hell."

War is hell on imperialist soldiers too. Big Fucking Deal. And look how the conquistadors suffered in the New World. So fucking what?
After all, they are human and you didn't expect them to act like angels always. I don't think that the situation in Cuba went up to that level of Nazi invasion in USSR. You also forgot one point that 4000 officers and soldiers were trialed after the war for committing atrocities to German civilians.

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 06:41

If you want to defend the Red Army because the mass rapes did not happen on the scale so claimed, then go ahead and do that. If you want to claim that when rapes did occur, they were an aberration, go right ahead. But don't try and spin the issue by saying "war is hell."

First you're not trying to accuse me of anything, now I'm spinning the issue. Whatever, man. You win, I'm the asshole, one way or another.

Os Cangaceiros

28th May 2011, 06:47

Personally I think that if you're gonna use the argument that, well, war is hell *shrug*, you're going to have to use it across the board.

The implications of this being that all the agitprop that leftists use in regards to horrifying actions on the part of the US government in the past (Indian wars, the occupation of the Phillipines, etc.) would be relegated to this category. And in fact it's what most people say when confronted with the evidence that their government has & continues to be culpable in horrible crimes. I'd like to think that we hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Were the Russians subjected to a savage scorched earth war against the Germans? Yeah. That doesn't excuse in any way, shape or form what may have occured in occupied Germany, though. Just as Tutsi rebels engaging in wholesale slaughters in Rwandan refugee camps isn't justified, despite the fact that they were butchered in the hundreds of thousands by the Hutus.

#FF0000

28th May 2011, 07:11

No, Im not trying to offend ...Im actually serious. Why should they go through the trouble of something as bad as rape, when they can masturbate?

Rape isn't sexual.

Rape in war has a ton of causes.

A small list I found online:

-expulsion of the civilian population,
-trans-generational revenge and punishment for atrocities committed in earlier
-conflicts between the two groups
-misogyny
-genocide mentality (wishes to extinguish the enemy from the face of the earth) and
-feelings of nationalistic superiority.

You can also add in the tremendous feelings of resentment towards anyone associated with the enemy that arise when you're in a unit that suffers horrible casualties and attrition. That certainly applies to the Red Army. Also explains, partially, why the Rape of Nanking happened. And many other atrocities.

also: you guys badgering Robocommie are flat out dumb as fuck.

Deal with it.

SacRedMan

28th May 2011, 07:55

Wait a minute... A whole army raped in 1 year 2 million people? Does anyone haves the phone number of Guinness Book of Records?

Oh, and what about the Allies? Those guys raped also a lot of people during the war!

Oh, and to get back on the numbers: 2 million? Seriously?

Is it me or is it when they speak about the wars of the USA, it's always about a 1000 people that have been killed, and if it is about the USSR, it's suddenly like a whole country that have been killed thanks to them.

I don't trust numbers nor people that just come and say "They killed about 2million" because I don't want to hear the word "million", no, I want exact numbers of deaths.

#FF0000

28th May 2011, 07:58

Wasn't the Red Army a huge drafted army?

Those are atrocities just waiting to happen, p. much

red cat

28th May 2011, 08:02

Rape isn't sexual.

Rape in war has a ton of causes.

A small list I found online:

-expulsion of the civilian population,
-trans-generational revenge and punishment for atrocities committed in earlier
-conflicts between the two groups
-misogyny
-genocide mentality (wishes to extinguish the enemy from the face of the earth) and
-feelings of nationalistic superiority.

You can also add in the tremendous feelings of resentment towards anyone associated with the enemy that arise when you're in a unit that suffers horrible casualties and attrition. That certainly applies to the Red Army. Also explains, partially, why the Rape of Nanking happened. And many other atrocities.

also: you guys badgering Robocommie are flat out dumb as fuck.

Deal with it.

Sometimes rape can be consciously used as an element of psychological warfare and battalions of soldiers can be specifically ordered to commit as many rapes as possible.

Os Cangaceiros

28th May 2011, 08:08

Sometimes rape can be consciously used as an element of psychological warfare and battalions of soldiers can be specifically ordered to commit as many rapes as possible.

uh oh (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-use-toture-t140559/index.html?t=140559)

#FF0000

28th May 2011, 08:27

Sometimes rape can be consciously used as an element of psychological warfare and battalions of soldiers can be specifically ordered to commit as many rapes as possible.

Absolutely. There's this too.

However, nowadays I don't think this is as common -- at least for western European or American soldiers. Tales of mass rape on the battlefield is hella bad press and that's something you wanna deal with in the age of mass media where you're trying to keep up this sterile point-and-click image of warfare.

Tavarisch_Mike

28th May 2011, 10:28

OMG! The level of this thread is lower then hell!

Anyway i wrote this:

About the rapes, i have my doubts that anyone has done some serious counting about it, at least i havnt heard of any trustworthy source yet. Dont get mee wrong im not denying that they actually happend, ofcourse not and probaly/unfortunately there where a lot of them, but they where done by some stupid individuals not organized by the red army itselves.

The whole thing is so cynial, once again dont get me wrong i hate to make such tradgic thing into politic, but think about this barbaric period known as the second world war, about all that horror mankind had to deal with massmurdering, firebombing, nuclear weapons, koncentration camps, extermination projects and of all this some people (right-wingers, nazis, liberals) allways wants to talk about is some single but terrible things commited by idividual soldiers and make that into "The totally organized brutality done by the red army as a whole".

When i had history lessons in school and we read about ww2 we didnt read so much about the eastern front and particulary not about the ettempt of Extermination against the people living there. This in combination with the common picture of that evrything about the Soviet Union must be bad doesnt give any perspective when you want to talk about errors and crimes that was made by people in the red army.

About the quality of the red armys warfare, yes theire number played an important role no question about that. But the whole thing that they where strategicly and technically retarded is a myth, even the historian Anthony Beevor has wroted that during this period the Soviet Union had one of the moste modern militaries in the world, the great failurs in the begining was a result of no preparation for a soone attac (because of the none-intervation-pact) and Stalins process of getting away experinced officers frome theire posts. The red amry was very good in using mobile warfare, theire summer and automn-offensive beated the nazis blitzkrieg very well.
__________________

In this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/ivans-war-and-t139377/index.html?p=1821875

EDIT: Point is that the rapes where commited by Individuals and was not part of the red amrys agenda, as some tries to make it look like in the typical demonization of socialism.

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 13:31

Absolutely. There's this too.

However, nowadays I don't think this is as common -- at least for western European or American soldiers. Tales of mass rape on the battlefield is hella bad press and that's something you wanna deal with in the age of mass media where you're trying to keep up this sterile point-and-click image of warfare.

Fucking nuts. Rape as a psychological weapon. WTF? And Robocommie thanks that post.

Tell me again how I'm badgering him and twisting his words.

EDIT: The original post was a question of facts. The rest of the thread, with the exception of a couple of posts, has been about anything but the facts-- ideological twists and spins at attempts to rationalize, justify, explain, and even, IMO, tacitly support rape [as revenge, payback, a psychological weapon]. You guys, and it's no accident that it's guys, engaged in this are simply a disgrace to revolutionary struggle.

PhoenixAsh

28th May 2011, 13:55

Fucking nuts. Rape as a psychological weapon. WTF? And Robocommie thanks that post.

Tell me again how I'm badgering him and twisting his words.

EDIT: The original post was a question of facts. The rest of the thread, with the exception of a couple of posts, has been about anything but the facts-- ideological twists and spins at attempts to rationalize, justify, explain, and even, IMO, tacitly support rape [as revenge, payback, a psychological weapon].

I agree with this.

Facts:
- Rape is used as a weapon in the theater of war;
- Rape is often excused as right of conquest or punishment is lessened because of the whole psychological effect of war;
- Rape is used as a tool of punishment

This is not in any way shape or form excusable. Its a given that it happens. It shouldn't.

Even if 4000 soldiers and officers were punished in this case...thats assuming that 4000 people raped 400.000 (at the very least) women. IMO thats a drop in the bucket...and it only illustrates how serious (not) the whole affair was taken...the fast mayority got away with it.

Just like in Japan. Just as in Bosnia. Just as in any other theater of war. It shouldn't.

You guys, and it's no accident that it's guys, engaged in this are simply a disgrace to revolutionary struggle.

But not this...but it is definately reason to have a long hard think.

PhoenixAsh

28th May 2011, 14:02

EDIT: Point is that the rapes where commited by Individuals and was not part of the red amrys agenda, as some tries to make it look like in the typical demonization of socialism.

I do not agree.

Political indoctrination of the Red Army included villifying the German people and creating a propagandised picture of evil beings who were less than human...(this can be read in the hundreds of accounts of Red Army soldiers)....which, like in other theaters of war during time, naturally contributed to such behaviour.

The rapes may not have been a goal but they were at the very least not genuinely taken serious. Only 4000? And at the very least 400.000 women were raped...think about it...

Ismail

28th May 2011, 14:03

Of course rape was/is used as a psychological weapon. It is said that some Roman soldiers would rape their enemies to humiliate them. It doesn't make it right, but I rather doubt the majority of rapes happened because "ooga booga where the aryan women at."

Political indoctrination of the Red Army included villifying the German people and creating a propagandised picture of evil beings who were less than human...(this can be read in the hundreds of accounts of Red Army soldiers)....which, like in other theaters of war during time, naturally contributed to such behaviour.This is correct, and I noted it in the first page of this thread. Many Red Army soldiers and even some German communists were of the view that the German nation needed to be broken up into regional nationalisms because they viewed German culture itself as being aggressive by nature. Obviously this view changed postwar.

NoOneIsIllegal

28th May 2011, 14:39

What the hell makes soldiers think "Well, we've defeated our enemy! Time to go rape some women." it's like... WTF? In normal society, people would be horrified, yet when there's war, it seems to be common place. What the hell happens from when you're walking down the street, living fine, working a job, to going to war and partaking in gang raping?

Plus, there are a lot of accounts of women being raped, yet people are saying rape was used to demoralize the enemy. Well, wasn't it typically men fighting on the front? They're just raping civilians, not "the enemy"...

Rakhmetov

28th May 2011, 14:42

Let us not forget:

Excerpt of D. F. Fleming's book

The Rule of Fear and Hindsight in World Politics

The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Dec., 1950), pp. 528-537

Of course it is not possible for the people of an unbombed, uninvaded nation really to understand what happened to the Russians. The Nazis and their allies occupied Soviet territory in which 88,000,000 people had lived. They destroyed, completely or partially, fifteen large cities, 1,710 towns, and 70,000 villages. They burned or demolished 6,000,000 buildings and deprived 25,000,000 people of shelter.

They demolished 31,850 industrial enterprises, 65,000 kilometers of railway track and 4,100 railway stations; 36,000 postal, telegraph and telephone offices; 56,000 miles of main highway, 90,000 bridges and 10,000 power stations. The Germans ruined 1,135 coal mines and 3,000 oil wells, carrying off to Germany 14,000 steam boilers, 1,400 turbines and 11,300 electric generators.

Any reflection on these figures by American city dwellers will undermine the idea that Russia can have no motive in the world except aggression. Farm people, too, will see another possibility when they think of the meaning of 98,000 collective farms and 2,890 machine and tractor stations sacked and the following numbers of livestock slaughtered by the Germans or carried away by them: 7,000,000 horses, 17,000,000 cattle, 20,000,000 hogs, 27,000,000 sheep and goats, 110,000,000 poultry. What would the American countryside be like if this kind of scourge had passed over it? And what feelings would be left behind?

The Germans and their satellites were no more tender with Soviet cultural institutions. They looted and destroyed 40,000 hospitals and medical centers, 84,000 schools and colleges, and 43,000 public libraries with 110,000,000 volumes. Some 44,000 theaters were destroyed, and 427 museums. Even the churches did not escape, more than 2,800 being wrecked.

In this country these figures do not burn holes in the page, but in Russia what they represent has been burned so deeply into the minds of the people that generations of safe living would be required even partially to eradicate them. There are between Nashville and Atlanta some people who still feel deeply about what General Sherman did on his march to the sea nearly a hundred years ago. What would our feelings be if the United States had been ravaged, as Russia was, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, with 15,000,000 people killed, twice as many made homeless, and 60,000,000 treated to every degrading and brutalizing experience that the fascist mind could invent? Only then could we really know how the Russians feel about their security from future attack through East Europe.

Imposter Marxist

28th May 2011, 14:46

You can't justify rape. You can't make rape a reasonable thing. You can provide the context in which it happened, and example possible reasons of WHY it happened, but you cannot justify it.

The Red Army troops were heros in defeating the nazis, yes, but rape is not okay. Its disgusting and it is not something that can be condoned by a revolutionary.

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 14:52

Fucking nuts. Rape as a psychological weapon. WTF? And Robocommie thanks that post.

Tell me again how I'm badgering him and twisting his words.

Oh fuck off. Just because we're acknowledging the fact that rape has been used as a terror tactic and weapon doesn't mean we find it in any way acceptable. Try to stop throwing your hands in the air and rolling your eyes in disbelief long enough to give us some benefit of the doubt as fucking human beings. From the opening you've been trying to do everything to interpret my words, and the words of others, in the worst possible light.

Rakhmetov

28th May 2011, 14:52

Ismail

28th May 2011, 15:18

What the hell happens from when you're walking down the street, living fine, working a job, to going to war and partaking in gang raping?I'm pretty sure the life of an average Soviet citizen (read: peasant) was fairly different from that of your average worker today.

Plus, there are a lot of accounts of women being raped, yet people are saying rape was used to demoralize the enemy. Well, wasn't it typically men fighting on the front? They're just raping civilians, not "the enemy"...They were seen as the same thing. As I said, Germans as a people were seen as fascist collaborators. Even German Communists were denouncing their civilian brethren in many cases for not overthrowing Hitler.

It's worth noting that Trotsky predicted that in the event of a war, German soldiers would gloriously unite with their Soviet brethren to overthrow both capitalism and "Stalinism." Stalin and Co. predicted after the M-R treaty that Germany would invade France, get stuck, and then Western Europe would arise in workers' rebellions, since Lenin said that a second world war would see an end to capitalism in Europe. Most German Communists were genuinely shocked when the latter didn't happen. One debate amongst Soviet officials was whether or not they should wait for workers to rise up in Berlin against Nazism. They waited and explored the situation, but it was eventually decided that it wasn't going to happen until the Red Army moved into Berlin and captured/killed Hitler.

The situation was sorta reminiscent to how the Social-Democrats pre-1914 said that proletarians across Europe would gloriously rise up against war and bring forth socialism. Evidently in 1914 that didn't happen, and many Social-Democrats collaborated with their respective governments.

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 15:21

It's worth noting that Trotsky predicted that in the event of a war, German soldiers would gloriously unite with their Soviet brethren to overthrow both capitalism and "Stalinism." Stalin and Co. predicted after the M-R treaty that Germany would invade France, get stuck, and then Western Europe would arise in workers' rebellions, since Lenin said that a second world war would see an end to capitalism in Europe. Most German Communists were genuinely shocked when the latter didn't happen.

But then so were most folks, I understand. Unless I'm mistaken, the French expected the Ardennes to hold the Germans off longer than it did.

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 15:29

Oh fuck off. Just because we're acknowledging the fact that rape has been used as a terror tactic and weapon doesn't mean we find it in any way acceptable. Try to stop throwing your hands in the air and rolling your eyes in disbelief long enough to give us some benefit of the doubt as fucking human beings. From the opening you've been trying to do everything to interpret my words, and the words of others, in the worst possible light.

Let me quote your own words to you:

You win, I'm the asshole, one way or another.

Indeed you are. Truer words you have never spoken. Or written.

Benefit of the doubt? As I pointed out, the OP was a question of fact. All you've offered is your ideological two-step which boils down to this shit happens because war is hell. Now, it's these things happen because war is hell and rape is a weapon in war. I believe the appropriate response is to quote your own words back to you again: "Fuck off."

Re:
There are between Nashville and Atlanta some people who still feel deeply about what General Sherman did on his march to the sea nearly a hundred years ago.

Yeah, the slaveholders descendants feel that way because Sherman destroyed their property; their slave mode of production.

Now, I guess if you want to expand the view of property to include women, yeah, ... well draw your own conclusions.

But speaking of facts... Sherman did not countenance rape. Women in occupied Atlanta were not subject to rape by Union soldiers. Benjamin Butler, known as the "beast" by the slaveholders for his treatment of slaveholders/secessionists when he was the military governor of New Orleans did not use rape as a weapon; did not countenance rape of the female population.

So what do we conclude from that? The US Civil War wasn't "hell"? Or not "hell enough"? That would be cute, since it was exactly that general in that civil war who used the term.

So fuck off the lot of you. I'd put you all on the ignore list but you know what? This chicken-shit outfit doesn't allow you to put moderators/admin on the ignore list no matter what counter-revolutionary horseshit they expound.

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 15:43

Indeed you are. Truer words you have never spoken. Or written.

Man, I don't know if you've got some kind of grudge against me after the Cuba thread or what, but god-damn. I'm not trying to say what you insist I am. I don't know how I can deny it any more than that. You can quote my shit and insist it says what you think it does. I don't think rape is okay.

NoOneIsIllegal

28th May 2011, 15:50

I'm pretty sure the life of an average Soviet citizen (read: peasant) was fairly different from that of your average worker today.
I think you're missing my intended point. How does one, who has probably never raped before, suddenly get caught up in all this? A lot of people don't rape. Yet it seems to happen frequently in wars.

They were seen as the same thing. As I said, Germans as a people were seen as fascist collaborators. Even German Communists were denouncing their civilian brethren in many cases for not overthrowing Hitler.
Yes, I read that. I should of reworded it though. Even though this topic is quite specific, I guess I was aiming at rape in war generally. But what you said, is this the normal concept of most people at war, that everyone is the enemy, and that somehow raping the women will demoralize the ones not being raped? I don't doubt it, hearing about rape is very frightening and sad. However, shouldn't they be humiliating the troops somehow instead, rather than be barbarians? Rape is about power. That poor woman who experienced it will always remember, yet plenty of enemy troops could of been gone by the time it happens.

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 15:51

I have no grudge against you. I quoted your words to you. You replied by telling me to "fuck off."

Don't dish it out, if you can't take it. Simple as fucking pie.

Rape as a "weapon of terror." Fucking bullshit. Whatever the fuck rape is, it sure isn't a weapon in warfare, since it is always practiced on the defenseless and can only increase the resistance of those still fighting.

Nothing personal, but you guys with you "war is hell" explanations don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Reznov

28th May 2011, 15:57

I wouldn't be surprised, nor do I really care to be honest.

When you put men in a situation like in world war II where they had the mentality of "This is the enemy, I can do whatever I want since I probably wont get in trouble anyways." of course they are going to act like animals since there wont be any reprecussions.

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 16:02

I have no grudge against you. I quoted your words to you. You replied by telling me to "fuck off."

You're god-damn right I did, you keep trying to shove my own words in my mouth and insist they're a defense of atrocity, and insist on just getting angrier and angrier and act more and more shocked and in disbelief, without actually TRYING to understand what I'm trying to say.

Rape as a "weapon of terror." Fucking bullshit. Whatever the fuck rape is, it sure isn't a weapon in warfare, since it is always practiced on the defenseless and can only increase the resistance of those still fighting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_war

"During war and armed conflict, rape is frequently used as means of psychological warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare) in order to humiliate the enemy and undermine their morale."

Chill. The fuck. Out.

Nothing personal, but you guys with you "war is hell" explanations don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Nothing personal? Dude you've practically accused us of being pro-rape!

And how the hell is it that YOU know what you're talking about? You yourself admitted you don't know anything about the subject.

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 16:12

I think you're missing my intended point. How does one, who has probably never raped before, suddenly get caught up in all this? A lot of people don't rape. Yet it seems to happen frequently in wars.

War in general tends to be an aberration like that. A lot of people- most people- don't kill. And yet, in war, authority figures give you a weapon and encourage you to go out and kill as many enemies as you possibly can. That's got to have some kind of seriously harsh effect on a person's psyche. As I understand it, most militaries in the past tend to encourage a dehumanized view of the enemy, or else soldiers will have a really hard time getting over their natural revulsion to killing human beings.

Rakhmetov

28th May 2011, 16:15

I have to agree with Robocommie on this one. Rape--- whether you like it or not (and I fervently hope you don't like it)---- is a weapon of war to break the will, morale and motivation of the enemy country's population.

Many civilians, more often than not, support their government's wars. To break the will of the civilian population support for their government the enemy will resort to rape, torture, mass killings, humilations, public executions, etc. :(

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 16:16

You're god-damn right I did, you keep trying to shove my own words in my mouth and insist they're a defense of atrocity, and insist on just getting angrier and angrier and act more and more shocked and in disbelief, without actually TRYING to understand what I'm trying to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_war

"During war and armed conflict, rape is frequently used as means of psychological warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare) in order to humiliate the enemy and undermine their morale."

Chill. The fuck. Out.

Nothing personal? Dude you've practically accused us of being pro-rape!

And how the hell is it that YOU know what you're talking about? You yourself admitted you don't know anything about the subject.

You're a punk who never deals with the concrete issues being raised. For example, the examples of Maceo, Sherman, and Butler.

I said I have never studied the assertion that the Red Army raped 2 million German women. That's what I said. Talk about twisting and ignoring words, you're the fucking champ. As for war being hell, I know a bit about that.

I'm not a bit angry or shocked. I think you're full of shit, and dancing around the subject rather than do a bit of investigation whether or not the claim is historically accurate. That's the way many deal with these things. Adds nothing but hot air, bullshit, and faux-wounded pride to the discussion.

Chill the fuck out? As we used to say back in the day: go pound sand. your ass sucks canal water.

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 16:17

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 16:24

None of this bullshit about it "being a weapon of warfare," which it certainly is not, at least not in all wars conducted by all armies, has the slightest fucking thing to do with the OP.

Did it happen? If it happened, how could it happen? Was it the conscious policy of the Red Army staff and field officers? Was it the result of a breakdown in discipline? What actions were taken in response to this breakdown.

If it didn't happen, then all this bullshit about "war is hell" "it's inevitable" "I don't know, and frankly I don't care"-- surely the worst response a revolutionist can give-- has no validity. Get that? No validity. Because war is hell, but mass rape did not occur. Because in the bloodiest conflict in history, with a toll beyond human imagination, the Red Army did not utilize rape as a weapon of terror. Get it? You're all talking out your asses, and justifying something that didn't happen because of your own ignorance, prejudices, and lack of understanding of the conflict.

So deal with the real history and spare us your wanking.

Ismail

28th May 2011, 16:28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape

During war and armed conflict, rape is frequently used as means of psychological warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare) in order to humiliate the enemy and undermine their morale. War rape is often systematic and thorough, and military leaders may actually encourage their soldiers to rape civilians. War rape may occur in a variety of situations, including institutionalised sexual slavery, war rapes associated with specific battles or massacres, and individual or isolated acts of sexual violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence). War rape may also include gang rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_rape) and rape with objects.

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 16:31

You're a punk who never deals with the concrete issues being raised...

...I think you're full of shit...

...Chill the fuck out? As we used to say back in the day: go pound sand. your ass sucks canal water.

Yeah well, let's not say anything personal we might regret later or anything...

Why do you always do this? Why do you always get so nasty and post with so much vitriol? For someone who claims to not be angry one bit, you sure do like to hurl abuse and invective. I don't even give a fuck about the thread anymore. If you want it that bad, I guess you "win."

I just think it's weird that a week ago you sent me an exasperated message about your opponents, apparently you saw me as a sympathetic ear, and now I'm a punk who's full of shit. I don't get it man, I thought we got along okay ever since I asked you about peak oil and you explained some stuff and told me about your railroad career. But whatever.

hatzel

28th May 2011, 16:33

You know where this thread's getting? Nowhere. It's getting nowhere. No. Where. At. All.

Rakhmetov

28th May 2011, 16:38

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_military_brothels_in_World_War_II

War crimes of the Wehrmacht

Mass rapes
Rapes were allowed in practice by the German military in eastern and southeastern Europe, while northern and western countries were spared.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-Muss-50) Historian Szymon Datner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szymon_Datner) wrote in his work about the fate of POWs taken by the Wehrmacht, that thousands of Soviet female nurses, doctors and field medics fell victim to rape when captured, and were often murdered afterwards.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-SDatner-27) Ruth Seifert in War and Rape. Analytical Approaches wrote: "in the Eastern territories the Wehrmacht used to brand the bodies of captured partisan women - and other women as well - with the words "Whore for Hitler's troops" and to use them accordingly."[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-seifert1992-51)
Birgit Beck (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birgit_Beck&action=edit&redlink=1) in her work Rape: The Military Trials of Sexual Crimes Committed by Soldiers in the Wehrmacht, 1939-1944 describes the leniency in punishing sex crimes by German authorities in the East, at the same time pointing out heavy punishments applied in the West.[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-h-net.org-52) If a soldier who committed a rape was subsequently convicted by a court-martial, he would usually be sentenced to four years in prison.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-53) The German penal code was also valid for soldiers in war.[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-54)
Rapes were rarely prosecuted in practice; in Denmark German rapes were not widespread, and German officials promised to punish them.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-Muss-50) Rape by Germans of non-German women was not taken seriously, nor was it punishable by death, especially in the eastern European territories.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-Wendy-55)
In Soviet Russia rapes were only a concern if they undermined military discipline.[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-h-net.org-52) The German military command viewed them as another method of crushing Soviet resistance.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-Wendy-55) Since 1941, rape was theoretically punishable with the death sentence, however this only concerned the rapes of German women and was intended to protect German communities.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-Wendy-55) Estimates regarding the rapes of Soviet women by the Wehrmacht reached up to 10,000,000 cases, with between 750,000 and 1,000,000 children born as a result.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-Wendy-55)[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-56)[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-57)[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-58)
In October 1940 the laws on rape were changed, making it a "petitioned crime" - that is a crime for which punishment had to be requested. Historian Christa Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christa_Paul&action=edit&redlink=1) writes that this resulted in "a nearly complete absence of prosecution and punishment for rapes".[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-Wendy-55) There were rape cases in the east where the perpetrators were sentenced if the rape was highly visible, damaging to the image of the German Army and the courts were willing to pass a condemning verdict against the accused.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-Wendy-55)
According to the historian Regina Mühlhäuser (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regina_M%C3%BChlh%C3%A4user&action=edit&redlink=1) the Wehrmacht also used sexual torture and undressing in numerous cases of interrogations.[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#cite_note-59)

Robocommie

28th May 2011, 16:39

You know where this thread's getting? Nowhere. It's getting nowhere. No. Where. At. All.

Not quite true, I'm sure it's getting us all pretty alienated.

I'm going to institute a personal rule to just never post in threads involving rape as a subject in any way. No good ever comes of it. Ever.

Ismail

28th May 2011, 16:40

I think that personal insults are not very conductive towards anything and should be put to a minimum. No more "your ass sucks canal water" comments, Artesian.

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 16:53

Yeah well, let's not say anything personal we might regret later or anything...

Why do you always do this? Why do you always get so nasty and post with so much vitriol? For someone who claims to not be angry one bit, you sure do like to hurl abuse and invective. I don't even give a fuck about the thread anymore. If you want it that bad, I guess you "win."

I just think it's weird that a week ago you sent me an exasperated message about your opponents, apparently you saw me as a sympathetic ear, and now I'm a punk who's full of shit. I don't get it man, I thought we got along okay ever since I asked you about peak oil and you explained some stuff and told me about your railroad career. But whatever.

You start by accusing people of twisting your words, accusing you of things, when no words were twisted etc. And you couch your response with suggestions to "fuck off" and allusions to "rolling eyes" and other crap.

When you get the same type of language back, and maybe doubled, then the whimpering starts.

The issue is that all these "explanations" for why rape did occur, and in fact, to extrapolate, will occur, will always occur, must occur assume these rapes happened, and because of that assumption, then attempt to "explain" the actions based on some sort of innate, inherent, disposition of war or soldiers. So that really isn't that far away from offering excuses for the particular incident.

So if you think [you referring to anyone who so thinks] that these rapes happened and the explanation is that "war is hell," "revenge is necessary" "rape is a tactic," it seems to me you're perpetuating the myth that discipline cannot be enforced to prevent these types of crimes.

Until anyone produces historical data that confirms the practice of mass rape by the Red Army, the discussion is worse than useless, it becomes a forum for gross ignorance.

And all that personal business, you bring in-- that PM? That's because I mistook you for someone else.

28350

28th May 2011, 17:07

Testosterone fueled young men that don't know if they're going home or not tend to do pretty barbaric things.

No. Testosterone has nothing to do with it.

Tavarisch_Mike

28th May 2011, 17:25

The rapes may not have been a goal but they were at the very least not genuinely taken serious. Only 4000? And at the very least 400.000 women were raped...think about it...

Khad (who is the only one who have presented any facts in this thread)mentioned that he had only founded sources on trial about the officers (the 4000) not anything about the soldiers. In the context its worth to remember that the red army used to charge its own soldiers for different crimes. So with this very poor-facted discussion youre playing with the numbers tend to fall...think about it...

Bad Grrrl Agro

28th May 2011, 17:28

I meant the women who were friends, relatives, or in passive support of Nazis.
Passive support out of fear?

#FF0000

28th May 2011, 18:11

Fucking nuts. Rape as a psychological weapon. WTF? And Robocommie thanks that post.

Rape is/was used as a psychological weapon. This is a fact. Stating this fact is not saying it's right, though.

EDIT: The original post was a question of facts. The rest of the thread, with the exception of a couple of posts, has been about anything but the facts-- ideological twists and spins at attempts to rationalize, justify, explain, and even, IMO, tacitly support rape [as revenge, payback, a psychological weapon]. You guys, and it's no accident that it's guys, engaged in this are simply a disgrace to revolutionary struggle.

Tell me, why would I seek to excuse the actions of Red Army soldiers in World War 2?

pranabjyoti

28th May 2011, 18:11

Passive support out of fear?
Not always fear! They were human beings and like men, they also have "national pride" and other such kind of backward mentalities. After all, women doesn't come from a different planet. They also can possess all the bad qualities of their men.

#FF0000

28th May 2011, 18:12

You start by accusing people of twisting your words, accusing you of things, when no words were twisted etc. And you couch your response with suggestions to "fuck off" and allusions to "rolling eyes" and other crap.

Wrong. Robocommie said "This is what led to this" and you said "OMG U SUPORT RAEP!?!#?14/1!?#$!$?"

The issue is that all these "explanations" for why rape did occur, and in fact, to extrapolate, will occur, will always occur, must occur assume these rapes happened, and because of that assumption, then attempt to "explain" the actions based on some sort of innate, inherent, disposition of war or soldiers. So that really isn't that far away from offering excuses for the particular incident.
Alright. Instead of seeking to understand what happened we'll just assume it either didn't happen or happened solely because the soldiers who did it are evil, evil people.

So if you think [you referring to anyone who so thinks] that these rapes happened and the explanation is that "war is hell," "revenge is necessary" "rape is a tactic," it seems to me you're perpetuating the myth that discipline cannot be enforced to prevent these types of crimes.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

First off, the "war is hell" statement wasn't about excusing the soldiers who committed the rapes or that we shouldn't worry much about them because "it's just what happens in war". It was to reinforce the fact that war and armed conflict are fucking horrendous things for reasons that go beyond the killing that goes on.

Second, who said "Revenge is necessary"?

Third, rape was a military tactic. Stating this does not mean one thinks it's justifiable or anything like that, you moron.

And lastly, no one is saying they can't be disciplined. The soldiers who did commit the rapes were dealt with and were punished. Further, there are ways to curtail the risk of atrocities like this in an army. Volunteer armies with standards when it comes to accepting recruits, for example, are (I think) less likely to put crazy people in uniform. There's also the matter of training and discipline, which the Red Army really didn't have at that point.

#FF0000

28th May 2011, 18:19

Not always fear! They were human beings and like men, they also have "national pride" and other such kind of backward mentalities. After all, women doesn't come from a different planet. They also can possess all the bad qualities of their men.

And, to be clear, that doesn't justify a thing.

Bad Grrrl Agro

28th May 2011, 18:33

Nolan

28th May 2011, 18:40

this is not ok, dude

I didn't say it was "ok," I said it was understandable. Obviously using rape to demoralize those who think are your enemy is deplorable, but if I don't actually literally say that in the post I'm the bad guy. It doesn't even need to be said.

The causes of it are obvious to anyone who doesn't have a cartoon view of the world where we execute every single rapist in the mutual bloodbath that was WWII. Which is a great deal of this forum judging by the wave of thanks you got.

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 18:51

Wrong. Robocommie said "This is what led to this" and you said "OMG U SUPORT RAEP!?!#?14/1!?#$!$?"

No, that's not what I said. I said his first post that he withdraw assumes the rapes occurred, and that the incidents are inherent in the ugly nature of war. Now that sounds like an excuse to me, because 1) it doesn't deal with the main issue-- did the rapes occur on a massive scale 2) if they did occur on a massive scale then it is an indication of conscious policy or complete collapse. Complete collapse of discipline is highly unlikely given the fact that the Red Army was highly successful. So it is likely then that it was conscious policy, and if conscious policy it has nothing to do with "war is hell" "soldiers seeking revenge" etc.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

No, not wrong, and I'll show you why.

First off, the "war is hell" statement wasn't about excusing the soldiers who committed the rapes or that we shouldn't worry much about them because "it's just what happens in war". It was to reinforce the fact that war and armed conflict are fucking horrendous things for reasons that go beyond the killing that goes on.

But of course the issue is not now, nor has it ever been excusing the individual soldiers, because the fact is these rapes if they did occur were not individual actions of soldiers acting out of individual impulses. They had to be either a result of massive breakdown in discipline, or conscious policy. See above.

Use of rape as a weapon was not practiced, nor tolerated, by the Union Army in the US Civil War. Not by Sherman, and not by Butler. Maceo actually executed soldiers in his army who mistreated the wives and families of slaveholders.

Second, who said "Revenge is necessary"?

There were many references, allusions, to the Red Army soldiers, having seen what they saw, suffered what they suffered, having family members who suffered would, almost naturally, act the way they did. It would help if you looked closely at what is being posted by others.

Third, rape was a military tactic. Stating this does not mean one thinks it's justifiable or anything like that, you moron.

That's bullshit and shows how fucking little you know about combat, and combat discipline. Stating it was a military tactic means you accept that 1) these rapes occurred and 2) this tactic is one inherent in and part of all conflicts, by either side.

As for the moron bit, Ismail asked for no more personal insults, you jerk.

And lastly, no one is saying they can't be disciplined. The soldiers who did commit the rapes were dealt with and were punished. Further, there are ways to curtail the risk of atrocities like this in an army. Volunteer armies with standards when it comes to accepting recruits, for example, are (I think) less likely to put crazy people in uniform. There's also the matter of training and discipline, which the Red Army really didn't have at that point.

You really don't know a thing about the military, combat and discipline. Voluntary armies are less likely to put crazy people in uniform? Are you fucking kidding me? Universal conscription is the best and most effective way for maintaining discipline and the quality of the army.

And as for training and discipline.... The Red Army by 1943, certainly after Kursk IMP was the best trained, best led army of WW2. If the Red Army didn't have discipline, it would never have rolled back the Wehrmacht.

Which all goes to prove my point-- without ever dealing with the question of historical accuracy, this issue simply allows people to engage in demonstrations of woeful ignorance.

Omsk

28th May 2011, 19:02

A lot of people here are posting nonsense and know quite little on this subject,i will try to provide some answers.

AUTHOR: Some books have made claims of widespread rape and looting.
MARSHAL RUDENKO: Such claims are untrue! If such cases were brought to the attention of our officers the perpetrators received maximum punishment.
But our political advisers and party organizations made strenuous efforts to prevent our soldiers from avenging themselves against the Germans. For example, our soldiers were instructed not to act according to the principle that because my village was burnt down in Russia, I will burn down your village in Germany. It would have been a crime to do this. That's why a huge propaganda work was done. Of course, you understand how difficult such a job is; it involves tremendous work to teach this to the troops. After all, some of the families of our soldiers had been burned to death or shot by Nazi soldiers.
Axell, Albert. Stalin's War: Through the Eyes of His Commanders. London, Arms and Armour Press. 1997, p. 50

Now,as many people here claimed,war rapes have happened,but i believe that the commanders did try to stop them,and prevents them.

War itself is a horrible thing,and this entire thread just proves that,horrible things happened in WW2,we can only hope they will not happen again.

On the account of people here who claim the Red Army was badly organized and trained,that it was a horrible mass of cattle - this just shows how you westerners know little about WW2,i bet most of it you learned from video games,where the capitalists presented the Red Army as a huge group of mindless cattle who only charge and shout URAAAAA and die in great numbers.This is how little you know.

LEADERS COMPLIMENT THE RED ARMY

It is the Russian army said Churchill on August second 1944 that has done the main work of tearing the guts out of the German Army.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 493

The German Generals' impressions of the Red Army were interesting, and often illuminating. The best appreciation in a concise form came from General Kleist: "The [Soviet] men were first-rate fighters from the start, and we owed our success simply to superior training. They became first-rate soldiers with experience. They fought most toughly, had amazing endurance, and could carry on without most of the things other armies regarded as necessities. The Staff were quick to learn from their early defeats, and soon became highly efficient."
I asked German General Rundstedt what he considered were the strong and weak points of the Red Army, as he found it in 1941. His reply was: "The Russian heavy tanks were a surprise in quality and reliability from the outset. But the Russians proved to have less artillery than had been expected, and their air force did not offer serious opposition in that first campaign."
Talking more specifically of the Russian weapons Kleist said: "Their equipment was very good even in 1941, especially the tanks. Their artillery was excellent, and also most of the infantry weapons--their rifles were more modern than ours, and had a more rapid rate of fire. Their T-34 tank was the finest in the world." In my talks with Manteuffel, he emphasized that the Russians maintained their advantage in tank design and that in the "Stalin" tank, which appeared in 1944, they had what he considered the best tank that was seen in battle, anywhere, up to the end of the war.
Hart, Liddell. The German Generals Talk. New York: W. T. Morrow, 1948, p. 220-221

As regards the general characteristics of the Russian soldier, Dittmar gave me an illuminating sidelight when I asked him what he considered was the Russians' chief asset. "I would put first, what might be called the soulless indifference of the troops--it was something more than fatalism. They were not quite so insensitive when things went badly for them, but normally it was difficult to make any impression on them in the way that would happen with troops of other nations. During my period of command on the Finnish front there was only one instance where Russian troops actually surrendered to my own.
Dittmar added: "On Hitler's specific orders, an attempt was later made in the German Army to inculcate the same mental attitude that prevailed in the Red Army. We tried to copy the Russians in this respect, while the Russians copied us, more successfully, in tactics.
Hart, Liddell. The German Generals Talk. New York: W. Morrow, 1948, p. 223-224

Blumentritt stated, "It was in this war, however, that we first learnt to realize what ' Russia' really means. The opening battle in June, 1941, revealed to us for the first time the new Soviet Army. Our casualties were up to 50 percent. The 0GPU and a women's battalion defended the old citadel at Brest-Litovsk for a week, fighting to the last, in spite of bombardment with our heaviest guns and from the air. Our troops soon learnt to know what fighting the Russians meant. The Fuhrer and most of our highest chiefs didn't know. That caused a lot of trouble.
"The Red Army of 1941-45 was far harder than the Tsar's Army, for they were fighting fanatically for an idea. That increased their doggedness, and in turn made our own troops hard, for in the East the maxim held good--'You or I.'
Hart, Liddell. The German Generals Talk. New York: W. Morrow, 1948, p. 225

During the month of July 1941 the course of contemporary history was to be decided. Under the staggering blows of the Wehrmacht, already drawing upon the human and economic potential of the whole of Europe, the Red Army constantly retreated. The whole structure of the Soviet edifice was shaken by the terrible blows. A few fissures were showing in the western part of the country, where defections were taking place. However, despite the defeats, the heavy losses, and the withdrawal from thousands of miles of the front--despite the overwhelming effect on the country's economy, as a whole the young State--and it was not 30 years old--was standing firm. Like certain metals, whose molecular structure becomes closer, and whose coefficient of resistance increases under the vibrations of a violent hammering, Soviet Russia was forging itself. There was no weakening of the military command or the government of the country; the industrial reorganization continued. Contrary to the enemy's expectation, instead of sinking into anarchy the peoples of the USSR remained united under a central authority. They persevered in the organized effort which enabled the USSR to sustain a modern, technical war, and without interruption to increase its military potential.
Delbars, Yves. The Real Stalin. London, Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 301

It was the Soviet Union that had beaten the fascist army. The second front, which Great Britain and the U.S. had promised as early as 1942, was not to materialize until June 1944, after it was clear that the Nazis had already been decisively defeated. In fact the Anglo-American invasion was aimed more at stopping communism than defeating fascism. [This invasion took place during the same period that the British army "liberated" Greece, which had already been liberated by the Communist-led Resistance.) For under Communist leadership, underground resistance movements, based primarily on the working class, had developed throughout Europe. Because the Communists, both from the Soviet Union and within the other European nations, were the leaders of the entire anti-fascist struggle, by the end of the war they had by far the largest parties in all the nations of Eastern and Central Europe, as well as Italy and France, where the fascists' power had been broken more by internal resistance than by the much-heralded Allied invasion. In fact, it is likely that if the Anglo-American forces had not invaded and occupied Italy and France, within a relatively short time the Communists would have been in power in both countries.
Franklin, Bruce, Ed. The Essential Stalin; Major Theoretical Writings. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1972, p. 32

On his return from the Teheran conference Stalin said:
"Roosevelt has given his word that large-scale action will be mounted in France in 1944. I believe he will keep his word. But even if he doesn't, we have enough of our own forces to complete the route of Nazi Germany."
Zhukov, Georgii. Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape, 1971, p. 493

On his return from the Teheran Conference, Stalin said: "Roosevelt has given his word that extensive action will be mounted in France in 1944. I believe he will keep his word. But even if he does not, our own forces are sufficient to complete the rout of Nazi Germany."
Zhukov, Georgi. Reminiscences and Reflections Vol. 2. Moscow: Progress Pub., c1985, p. 229

From the precise manner in which Stalin expressed his ideas one could see that he had given much thought to all these matters. Although he believed that we were strong enough to finish off Nazi Germany single-handed Stalin sincerely welcomed the opening of the Second Front in Europe, which brought closer the end of the war, so much desired by the Soviet people.
Zhukov, Georgii. Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape, 1971, p. 535

When Russia was invaded by Hitler's blitzkrieg in 1941 she was glad to find friends and allies in Britain and the United States; but the fact remains that the brunt of the fighting was done by Russia, and that she lost 40 or 50 times more people than either of them. Until June 1944 Britain and the USA fought, in effect, what was only a peripheral war against Germany.... Not till 1944, when the Germans had already been virtually defeated, did the "real" Second Front open.
Werth, Alexander. Russia; The Post-War Years. New York: Taplinger Pub. Co.,1971, p. 62

In this final report on the war, in October, 1945, General Marshall, the United States Chief of Staff stated: "The refusal of the British and Russian peoples to accept defeat was the great factor in the salvage of our civilization....
"There can be no doubt... that the heroic stand of the British and Soviet peoples saved the United States a war on her own soil. The crisis had come and passed at Stalingrad... . before this nation was able to gather sufficient resources to participate in the fight in a determining manner."
Winston Churchill had previously made a similar statement to Parliament, on August 2, 1944: "It is the Russian army which has done the main force of ripping the guts out of the German army."
Duranty, Walter. Stalin & Co. New York: W. Sloane Associates, 1949, p. 88

Despite the absence of a second front in Europe, the Soviet Union put Nazi Germany on the brink of a military disaster.
Zhukov, Georgi. Reminiscences and Reflections Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress Pub., c1985, p. 353

On returning from the Teheran Conference, Supreme Commander Stalin said:
"Roosevelt has given me his firm word to open extensive actions in France in 1944. I think he will keep his word."
"And if he doesn't keep his word," he thought aloud, "we are strong enough to crush Hitler Germany on our own."
Zhukov, Georgi. Reminiscences and Reflections Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress Pub., c1985, p. 354

"In June the Allies intend to finally conduct a major landing operation in France. Our allies are in a hurry," Stalin smiled. "They are afraid that we will rout Nazi Germany without them."
Zhukov, Georgi. Reminiscences and Reflections Vol. 2. Moscow: Progress Pub., c1985, p. 261

Although he believed that we were strong enough to finish off Nazi Germany single-handed, Stalin sincerely welcomed the opening of the Second Front in Europe, which brought closer the end of the war, so much desired by the Soviet people who were extremely exhausted by the war and privatizations.
Zhukov, Georgi. Reminiscences and Reflections Vol. 2. Moscow: Progress Pub., c1985, p. 281

German General Zimmerman, Chief of Operations on the Western Front, said: 'The war against the British and Americans in France was lost on the Eastern Front even before the landing of the Anglo-American armies on the Continent.' And: "it would be no exaggeration to say that the Eastern Front steadily pumped all the efficient manpower and combat equipment out of the German armies in the West.' Quoted in historian, Yeremeyev's The USSR in World War II.
Axell, Albert. Stalin's War: Through the Eyes of His Commanders. London, Arms and Armour Press. 1997, p. 209

However,it is true that the Nazi swine vermin had military superiority over the SU and the Red Army.

AT THE START OF THE WAR NAZIS HAD MILITARY SUPERIORITY OVER THE SU

Harriman and Beaverbook had three evening meetings with Stalin--Sunday, September 28, Monday the 29th, and Tuesday the 30th, of 1941....
At the first meeting with Stalin, cordiality prevailed. Stalin gave a candid review of the military situation, as he had done with Hopkins, saying that Germany's superiority to Russia was, in air power, in a ratio of three to two-- in tanks, a ratio of three or 4 to 1--in divisions, 320 to 280.
Sherwood, Robert E. Roosevelt and Hopkins. New York: Harper, 1948, p. 387

Paul Cockshott

28th May 2011, 21:26

But German civilians are neither oppressor nor exploitors.
Are you sure you wanted to say that?

Clearly the civilians in the capitalist class were exploiters, but more generally you should not gloss over the considerable civilian support for the aggression of the National Socialist Government. Fischer brings out the extent to which German war aims were the product of a consensus among the intelligentsia and upper classes of the country.

The rapes by the Red Army indicate a breakdown in discipline, but you have to ask what sort of social organisation could, in the 1940s have hoped to instill in an army of millions of conscripts a discipline and set of social attitudes that would appear morally appropriate to us today. Rape was recognised as a crime then, but not perhaps as serious a crime as we now see it. But attitudes to these things are the product of social circumstances. We are a generation far removed from the reality of total war. Our attitudes and moral values have been shaped by civilian bourgeois societies that have not, in most of our lifetimes experienced the realities of total war.

This shapes our scale of judgement of issues.
There were far worse crimes comited by the allies against civilians, unrestricted
submarine warfare by the USA against civilian Japanese shipping, the firebombing of
Tokyo and Hamburg. We can see these now as atrocities
But if you asked British civilians in 1944 whether they thought
bombing German cities or sinking Japanese merchant ships was ok, they would
have said that the bastards had it coming.

Go back further in time to say 1910, and such actions would have seemed even worse
outrages than they do now.

In judging actions in the 2nd world war, you have to look at the general degradation of moral attitudes brought on by two terrible imperialist wars.

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 21:42

Lenina Rosenweg

28th May 2011, 22:18

I meant the women who were friends, relatives, or in passive support of Nazis.

How about urban working class German women who never supported Hitler, many of whom supported or were members of the KPD or SPD pre-Hitler? What about them?

Its true that anti-Hitler resistance wasn't all that it might have been, but there were leftists, loosely grouped around the Rote Kapelle, who heroically risked (and often lost) their lives. Much of the German working class resisted the rise of Hitler right up to the very end.

pranabjyoti

28th May 2011, 22:23

Much of the German working class resisted the rise of Hitler right up to the very end.
REALLY? That which class supported the rise of Hitler? Just the bourgeoisie isn't enough.

Lenina Rosenweg

28th May 2011, 22:37

REALLY? That which class supported the rise of Hitler? Just the bourgeoisie isn't enough.

If the working class is crushed, as they were in Germany in 1923 the bourgoise is more than enough to facilitate fascism if this is perceived to be in their interest. How else do you explain it?It was your mate Joe over in Mockba who did much to sabotage the German working class and facilitated the rise of Hitler.. Just think of the horrendous role of the KPD.

Read some history

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/index.htm

Jose Gracchus

28th May 2011, 22:47

It is amazing how fast Stalinists revert to bourgeois nationalism (in this case, Great Russian nationalism).

hatzel

28th May 2011, 22:51

It is amazing how fast Stalinists revert to bourgeois nationalism (in this case, Great Russian nationalism).

But didn't you hear that the Soviet army was just so wonderful and perfect and revolutionary, this could never have happened!

That is to say, every time I stick my nose into this thread I notice, to my eternal surprise, that it's somehow managed to descend even further down into the depths of irrelevance...

Rooster

28th May 2011, 22:54

Ug, never mind. It's not worth it.

S.Artesian

28th May 2011, 23:03

But didn't you hear that the Soviet army was just so wonderful and perfect and revolutionary, this could never have happened!

That is to say, every time I stick my nose into this thread I notice, to my eternal surprise, that it's somehow managed to descend even further down into the depths of irrelevance...

No, no, you just don't understand. Did it happen? Who knows? Who cares? But: It happened because war is hell; war can never be justified; this is what happens in war; we're all against it, it's horrible, but it's inevitable; it's a psychological weapon; it's a weapon of terror designed to demoralize the enemy; it's inevitable given all the suffering the Red Army had experienced; it's impossible to create and maintain discipline in a conscript army; because boys will be boys since testosterone is testosterone; because rape wasn't considered that serious back then; because civil society can't really appreciate the stresses of war.... blahblahblahblahapology after blahblahblahblahapology ad infinitum and nauseum.

Any moderator in his/her right mind would close and trash this entire thread just to get rid of the stink.

red cat

28th May 2011, 23:29

Passive support out of fear?

Or rather for enjoying ruling class privileges.

How about urban working class German women who never supported Hitler, many of whom supported or were members of the KPD or SPD pre-Hitler? What about them?

I am not supporting the rape of even ruling class women, but I doubt if a non-Jewish working class German woman experienced any hardships even close to those of a Russian soldier.

Its true that anti-Hitler resistance wasn't all that it might have been, but there were leftists, loosely grouped around the Rote Kapelle, who heroically risked (and often lost) their lives. Much of the German working class resisted the rise of Hitler right up to the very end.

I read a bit about this somewhere. The struggles of the German communists during the rise of Hitler are particularly interesting.

Lenina Rosenweg

28th May 2011, 23:31

No, no, you just don't understand. Did it happen? Who knows? Who cares? But: It happened because war is hell; war can never be justified; this is what happens in war; we're all against it, it's horrible, but it's inevitable; it's a psychological weapon; it's a weapon of terror designed to demoralize the enemy; it's inevitable given all the suffering the Red Army had experienced; it's impossible to create and maintain discipline in a conscript army; because boys will be boys since testosterone is testosterone; because rape wasn't considered that serious back then; because civil society can't really appreciate the stresses of war.... blahblahblahblahapology after blahblahblahblahapology ad infinitum and nauseum.

Any moderator in his/her right mind would close and trash this entire thread just to get rid of the stink.

Another humanist! Next you'll be saying slavery, class collaborationism,a one party autocracy, and the rule of a bureaucratic elite have no place in socialism. What next?

Paul Cockshott

29th May 2011, 00:00

And this is where it gets us ^^^^^^ crap, crap, and more crap.

1. "Considerable support for the aggression of the National Socialist government." Not that this was was the product of capitalism as capitalism, determined by overproduction, the need to restore profitability.
If you read Fischers books on German War Aims in the First World War,, and also KaiserReich to 3rd Reich, you will see that the war aims of national socialism were
nothing new and were just a continuation of those of the Bethman Hollweg government, and that these in turn were based on generally shared views of the bourgeois establishment both under the Kaiser Reich, the Weimar Republic and through the Hitler government.
It was clearly conditioned by capitalism but it is a mistake to see this as a short term response to overproduction in the inter-war period.

2. Breakdown in discipline? Right, I guess Mr. Cockshott assumes the 2 million rapes did happen. Well 2,000,000 rapes isn't a breakdown in discipline. It's a conscious policy. So the issue of discipline is hardly the issue.

I dont know whether 2,000,000 rapes occured. There does seem to be evidence that a significant number occured, and for this to be happening there has to have been either a breakdown of, or lax discipline. We have had other posters citing the number of officers put on trial for allowing crimes against the civilian population at 4000. What we dont know is how many ordinary soldiers were prosecuted. If there were prosecutions it speaks against there being a general policy allowing rapes, but on the other hand the remark by Stalin quoted, indicates that the Soviet government did not regard the rapes as seriously as we would now.

3. Rape was recognized as a crime then, but not as serious a crime as we consider it to be now? Talk about male blindspots. Ask the victims how seriously they regarded the crime. Not as serious a crime then. Gee, I guess that means all the rapes conducted by the German soldiers weren't crimes of that seriousness then, and consequently the "payback" explanation should be withdrawn.

Am I wrong in suggesting that the Soviet government at the highest levels did not regard it as seriously as we now would?

4. Our attitudes towards war have been shaped by civilian bourgeois attitudes? More crap. What's at stake as Mr. Cockshott pointed out isn't our attitude towards war, but the seriousness of rape. In that, our attitudes towards rape as a policy or as a tactic have been shaped by the subjugation of women.

I was making the general point that social attitudes are conditioned by experience and conditions of life. Our conditions of life are different from those of the generations who lived through the world wars. Living through years during which death and destruction
were common-place, years in which not only millions of soldiers died but even more
millions of civilians were killed hardens and coursens peoples moral values.
The example I gave was of attitudes to the sinking of merchant vessels and the
bombing of cities. When these forms of Schrecklichkeit were first employed
by the KaiserReich they were universally condemned in other capitalist countries.
The US press was vehement about their inhumanity.
But 30 years or so later, the very same forms of war, used by the US government,
and on a much greater scale, were accepted by the general population without protest.

If US and British public opinion, and US and British governments had become so
morally coarsened as to accept without protest far worse crimes than rape by
their armed forces, what is surprising is that the Soviet authorities took even such
measures as they did to punish offenders in their own forces.

5. In judging actions in the WW2, you have to look at the general degradation of moral attitudes brought on by two terrible imperialist wars? Exactly how and why would the general degradation contaminate, infect, in epidemic proportions, a revolutionary, socialist society and its revolutionary army?
First I think you are using the wrong terminology.
A revolutionary army is one engaged in a revolution. The army of a socialist state is not a revolutionary army, but a defence force.
When that force, and the country it is defending, has just been subjected to an attack
of unprecedented scale and brutality, in which it has suffered huge losses and made great sacrifices, those who have been through this will inevitably see human life, and particularly the lives of the enemy nation in a more callous manner than civilians in time of peace.

But even if we were to say that the Soviet army was a revolutionary army, that gives them no general immunity to the human condition. Contrary to what an earlier poster said, a Red Army is made of humans not angels. They are subject to fear, hatred, jealousy and sexual lust like any other men.

Lenina Rosenweg

29th May 2011, 00:07

I read a bit about this somewhere. The struggles of the German communists during the rise of Hitler are particularly interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Orchestra-Underground-Friends-Resisted/dp/1400060001

Fascinating read. The author, Anne Nelson seems to be a liberal but she points out the heroism of the (unfortunately small) German resistance centered around the KPD as well as the extreme incompetence of their NKVD handlers which in 1944 I believe virtually destroyed the organization.

hatzel

29th May 2011, 00:29

Noise

I seriously have no idea what your problem is with this whole thread any more. Considering most of the reason it's so shit is because you've just been getting delirious and chucking 'blahblahblahblahapology'-shit (as if that's actually supposed to mean anything) at anybody who's said anything about the issue which wasn't outright denying it ever happened, it seems strange that you're so offended at how it's progressed...:confused:

Anyway, this is how I feel about all this, considering it seems to be just another Rakhmetov thread, if you know what I mean:

http://www.memestick.com/images/interested%20cat.jpg

S.Artesian

29th May 2011, 05:43

My problem with this thread is that nobody, or almost nobody is dealing with the question of historical fact-- did it or did it not occur.

Instead, everyone's trying to "explain" it-- using the condemnation of individuals to excuse what must have been a social policy and program if it happened.

Now I know that distinction is generally much too subtle for "leftists" and "socialists"-- particularly those so enamored with uhh... the "socialist" qualities of the first and second five year plans-- but it's exactly that distinction, between the individual and the social that forms the basis of historical materialism.

So that's my problem. We get 100 different reasons why the "individuals" did such things are criminals, can't be justified; but the social planning that went into such actions, if such actions did occur, is given, essentially a free pass because "war is ugly" "war is unjustified" the "army isn't a revolutionary army, it's a defensive weapon of the socialist state" etc. etc. etc.

You can't understand that? No shit. What a surprise.

RED DAVE

29th May 2011, 06:41

I am not supporting the rape of even ruling class women, but I doubt if a non-Jewish working class German woman experienced any hardships even close to those of a Russian soldier.So why the "but," why the quibble? The grammatic "but" means in this contgext that the conditions of the previous statement are somehow mitigated.

RED DAVE

Lenina Rosenweg

29th May 2011, 06:54

There is no justification for rape, however "critical", no "buts" or "ifs", no extenuating circumstances such as..."rape is bad, but its war".

A Marxist should understand the reasons for the rise of Nazism which lie in the treason of social democracy and the insane "Third Period" which crippled the worker's movement.A Marxist should understand that the barbarities of Nazism were crimes of the German bourgeois and petty bourgeois, who were enabled in this by the aforementioned disembowelment of the German CP. Fisher was mentioned in a post on this thread. I could recommend reading her "Stalin and German Communism" , an excellent history of this.

Paul Cockshott

29th May 2011, 09:06

. Fisher was mentioned in a post on this thread. I could recommend reading her "Stalin and German Communism" , an excellent history of this.

I was referring to Fritz Fischer :
Griff nach der Weltmacht: die Kriegszielpolitik des Kaiserlichen Deutschland, 1914–18, 1961.

Bündnis der Eliten: Zur Kontinuität der Machstrukturen in Deutschland, 1871–1945, 1979.

He argues strongly against the 'exceptionalist' theory of National Socialism, arguing that it was instead just the continuation of long standing expansionist policies of the German bourgeois establishment.

Lenina Rosenweg

29th May 2011, 17:04

Bad Grrrl Agro

29th May 2011, 17:19

Or rather for enjoying ruling class privileges.
There were many german women who were taught by the fascists that their only reason for existing is to give birth to aryan babies. They themselves were under the foot of extreme patriarchal sexist rule. Women had no say in society under the Nazis they were essentially baby making slaves.

Le LibÃ©rer

29th May 2011, 17:29

Lenina Rosenweg

29th May 2011, 17:55

I do not know this for certain but I have heard that the mass raping was primarily committed by non-Russian Soviet troops from the Central Asian republics who came from a very patriarchal culture and traditionally regarded the enemy's women as war booty.The rapes were not committed by troops whose homeland was devastated by the Germans but by those from areas away from the front. This was egged on by Soviet propaganda.

Admittedly I can't verify this, I have heard this idea from several sources long ago.

Any type of rape is disgusting and should be considered especially so in any Marxist conception of military struggle.

This is interesting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1382565/Red-Army-troops-raped-even-Russian-women-as-they-freed-them-from-camps.html

Paul Cockshott

29th May 2011, 18:02

Okay. Is there an English translation? Meinen Deutsch ist sehr schlecht.
I was referring to
http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-German-Communism-Origins-Classics/dp/0878558225

Interesting review by Paul Mattick

http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1949/stalin-german-communism.htm

Sorry I thought you were German so I gave the German refs, the English titles are
'From Kaiserreich to third Reich, and the other was Germanys Aims in the First World War.

Nolan

29th May 2011, 18:09

I find this to be apologetic to rape.

And I find you to be an idiot. I've already explained why that's ridiculous.

khad

29th May 2011, 18:11

I do not know this for certain but I have heard that the mass raping was primarily committed by non-Russian Soviet troops from the Central Asian republics who came from a very patriarchal culture and traditionally regarded the enemy's women as war booty.The rapes were not committed by troops whose homeland was devastated by the Germans but by those from areas away from the front. This was egged on by Soviet propaganda.

Admittedly I can't verify this, I have heard this idea from several sources long ago.
Way to parrot Nazi racialist propaganda.

About as much as I expected from the likes of you.

red cat

29th May 2011, 18:25

So why the "but," why the quibble? The grammatic "but" means in this contgext that the conditions of the previous statement are somehow mitigated.

RED DAVE

I didn't mean to use it that way though.

Ele'ill

29th May 2011, 18:25

And I find you to be an idiot.

Watch the flaming.

Invader Zim

29th May 2011, 18:26

I meant the women who were friends, relatives, or in passive support of Nazis.

Ah, so raping them diserves only a slap on the wrist?

How precisely could one live or work in Nazi germany without giving at least passive support to the Nazis? And even if they could, how precisely was a Red Army Soldier, taking his pick of women to rape, going to determine the difference? Or perhaps you think the women of Germany should have been lined up, had their history analysed and those found to have to close an association to Nazism be thrown to the rapists?

Fuck off.

red cat

29th May 2011, 18:30

There were many german women who were taught by the fascists that their only reason for existing is to give birth to aryan babies. They themselves were under the foot of extreme patriarchal sexist rule. Women had no say in society under the Nazis they were essentially baby making slaves.

This does not apply to all German women. Ruling class women are never slaves in the correct sense. If they are gullible or selfish enough to accept Nazi rule, then they deserve the same fate as that of their men.

Invader Zim

29th May 2011, 18:30

And I find you to be an idiot. I've already explained why that's ridiculous.

How is it ridiculous? So a serial killer murders a family member of yours, that makes it understandable - if not tolerable - for you to rape one of his family members?

It is apologism for rape and you're the fucking idiot.

This thread is astounding.

S.Artesian

29th May 2011, 18:31

And what about the rest of the propaganda that gets spewed around here:

1. Oh, war is hell. It dehumanizes everything. There is no such thing as a just war. Therefore rapes, on a mass scale, should be seen as part of the general dehumanization.

2. Oh, war is hell. Part of that hell is the use of terror to demoralize the opponent. Therefore rapes, on a mass scale, are inevitable, and a military tactic.

3. Oh war is hell. After all the suffering the Red Army saw, experienced, lived, revenge was inevitable. Rape is a form of revenge, therefore rapes, on a mass scale, should be seen as inevitable.

4. Oh war is hell, and boys just want to have fun. Testosterone rules. Therefore rape on a mass scale is inevitable as it's a way for testosterone to have fun.

5. Or... the Red Army was ill-trained, ignorant, poorly disciplined [which by the way is exactly the same propaganda that you attack Lenina for parroting-- and BTW I agree, it is propaganda], a conscript army, and thus rapes, on a mass scale, are inevitable.

6. Or... rape wasn't considered as severe a crime in 1945.

7. Or... ad infinitum ad nauseum.

How about all that horseshit that gets spread around?

Manic Impressive

29th May 2011, 18:32

I do not know this for certain but I have heard that the mass raping was primarily committed by non-Russian Soviet troops from the Central Asian republics who came from a very patriarchal culture and traditionally regarded the enemy's women as war booty.The rapes were not committed by troops whose homeland was devastated by the Germans but by those from areas away from the front. This was egged on by Soviet propaganda.

Admittedly I can't verify this, I have heard this idea from several sources long ago.
It's not something that I've heard before but it sounds like racist propaganda used to justify the deportation of people like the Kalmyks.

red cat

29th May 2011, 18:32

Ah, so raping them diserves only a slap on the wrist?

How precisely could one live or work in Nazi germany without giving at least passive support to the Nazis? And even if they could, how precisely was a Red Army Soldier, taking his pick of women to rape, going to determine the difference? Or perhaps you think the women of Germany should have been lined up, had their history analysed and those found to have to close an association to Nazism be thrown to the rapists?

Fuck off.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I make it very clear once again, I don't support rape in any circumstances.

SacRedMan

29th May 2011, 18:35

Rape can't be justified.

RED DAVE

29th May 2011, 18:38

Worth reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany

RED DAVE

Ele'ill

29th May 2011, 18:38

S.Artesian

29th May 2011, 18:40

For the nth time, everybody says they don't support rape in any circumstance and they all believe individual soldiers should be punished. Wow, that's so bold and progressive of everyone.

Not the point though.

The point of the OP was: did this happen and did it happen on this scale. If it did happen on this scale, it is not a case of individuals acting contrary to discipline. It is a case of individual soldiers acting on the intent, desire of the leadership, the organization of the army.

That's quite a different thing as it makes all you explanations denouncing rape as individual acts superfluous, meaningless and.. it makes them appear as an excuse, a diversion, for the conscious actions of that leadership.

Every single bit of the propaganda supporting the "war is hell; rape is inevitably part of this hell" can be refuted by the example of armies that did not rape.

This is not, and has not been, the era of Conan the Barbarian, or Viking conquest of York, for quite some time.

Lenina Rosenweg

29th May 2011, 18:51

Way to parrot Nazi racialist propaganda.

About as much as I expected from the likes of you.

As I mentioned I cannot verify this, I thought I would throw that out. I have thought long and hard before making my last post, I did not want anyone to misconstrue my meaning. The idea expressed may be utter nonsense but it may be worth further research. It is not racist to say aspects of a specific culture are sexist or otherwise oppressive.

The Pushtun people have a "quaint" saying to the effect that a "Pushtun woman leaves the house twice in her life, once when she's leaves her father's house to be married, and once when she leaves her husband's house to go to the graveyard" (in Islam one's lifetime goes beyond the period of death).Obviously not all Pushtun live this way but it is evident that in isolated regions where the code of Pushtunwali prevails women are often treated like property(and there is a tradition of pedophilia, as khad has pointed out elsewhere)

The US is guilty of vast atrocities amounting to genocide, as everyone on this forum should know. Does this make American culture reactionary or oppressive? I would say it most certainly does.

Its not racist to point out that a specific culture has strong reactionary elements. Culture of course has a material basis.

There are over 700 official US military bases around the world. Its my understanding that most of these have to be kept remote from the local civilian population to prevent rape and mayhem committed by US troops.

Wilhelm Reich wrote somewhere (I forget where) about the sexist nature of some Central Asian cultures and the work of Zhenodal in changing this.Is it beyond the realm of plausibility that a culture with a strong macho warrior ethos and a nomadic tradition may feel that in wartime the enemy's women are a legitimate target? This idea may be full of shit, I don't know but it isn't racist.

S.Artesian

29th May 2011, 18:53

I didn't say it was "ok," I said it was understandable. Obviously using rape to demoralize those who think are your enemy is deplorable, but if I don't actually literally say that in the post I'm the bad guy. It doesn't even need to be said.

The causes of it are obvious to anyone who doesn't have a cartoon view of the world where we execute every single rapist in the mutual bloodbath that was WWII. Which is a great deal of this forum judging by the wave of thanks you got.

WTF? Understandable? I understand slavery. I know why it occurred, and what purpose it served. I understand it, so fucking what?

I understand Buchenwald, Treblinka. I understand Calley at My Lai. See if this sounds familiar:

1. War in Viet Nam was hell, fought against a generally hostile population that would shelter guerrillas and NVA regular infantry.

2. The Americal Division was mostly conscript soldiers who had received insufficient training.

3. Calley's platoon had suffered consecutive days of casualties from an unseen and elusive enemy.

4. These were young boys, filled with testosterone, who were ripped from their families, suffering, and witness the suffering of the horrors of war.

5. The Americal Division was poorly disciplined and poorly led at the platoon level.

6. Discipline obviously broke down in My Lai.

Does this sound at all familiar to anyone. You want to stick Red Army and rape in those 6 points. Will that make it any more clear. How about Wehrmacht and Zitomer, Belarussia?

And to all of that, the answer is horseshit. The lack of discipline did not cause My Lai. The intent of the US Army engaged in combat in Vietnam caused My Lai; the creation of free-fire zones, etc.

Sorry the causes of mass rape, if mass rape occurred, have nothing to do with the cartoon world you live in.

Invader Zim

29th May 2011, 19:01

Stop putting words in my mouth. I make it very clear once again, I don't support rape in any circumstances.

NO, you just argued that minimal punishments for rapists should be administered providing that the women raped had the misfortune to have lived under Nazi rule. Which is, of course, a form of patent rape apologism.

If you can't see why that is wholey reactionary you shouldn't even be on this board.

RED DAVE

29th May 2011, 19:05

The critical point of all this is: THIS WAS THE RED ARMY!

This was an army of men and women who had supposedly grown up under socialism. They had been educated in socialist schools. They had been exposed to sociallst values for much of their lives.

So, either the "socialist" government of the USSR had failed in what we might called socialist moral education or we are not dealing with socialism.

RED DAVE

Lenina Rosenweg

29th May 2011, 19:07

For what its worth my post, #123, was not that well thought out and I retract it.

Nolan

29th May 2011, 19:14

red cat

29th May 2011, 19:20

NO, you just argued that minimal punishments for rapists should be administered providing that the women raped had the misfortune to have lived under Nazi rule. Which is, of course, a form of patent rape apologism.

If you can't see why that is wholey reactionary you shouldn't even be on this board.

It was not the "misfortune" of ruling class women to live under Nazi rule. They were rather fortunate to live luxurious lives which the colonial, Jewish and the working class population in their own country paid for. And keeping this in mind, I advocate different punishments for the rapes of women belonging to different classes. I do not oppose the rape of ruling class women because I sympathize with them; I oppose them solely because any rape is an indirect attack on the womanhood of our female comrades.

Invader Zim

29th May 2011, 19:26

This will probably be my last post in this so-called discussion.

I'm saying that rape was the most logical outcome of Red Army occupation of Germany. It was not a conscious policy on anyone's part, it was a product of history's most brutal war and really hating your enemy. How disciplined the army is is a factor in how widespread it is, not if it happens.

And yeah, I understand it in the same way I understand native massacres on white settlers. It is a product of the situation, in the Americas the genocide and replacement of your people, and in WWII absolute hate for the Germans after a mind boggling number of your countrymen have been slaughtered by the German army. Among other things.

As a side note I find the figure in the OP highly unlikely. One of my old textbooks listed it as 300,000 to 600,000 iirc.

Sorry, but this is pure unmitigated bullshit of the lowest order. Just because a horrific crime has been inflicted on a people does not make it understandable for hundreds of thousands of that nations soldiers to wage a campaign of rape against the aggressor nations women.

It may be a possible identifiable reason why some soldiers justified to themselves their own misogynist criminality, but it doesn't make rape understandable; unless of course you are a misogynist rapist.

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 19:29

Rape in war occurs for several reasons:

1). Breakdown of discipline. Unstructured and asystematic.
2). Rape as a reward for the victors: right of conquest. Massed and large scale
3). Rape as a weapon of war. Structured and systematic large scale.

Since we established 1 is not applicable here on such a large scale. Since the Red Army did have discpline and did not suffer from loss of morale...its either one or both of the others.

All of these reasons can be contributed to the army...but both 2 & 3 are part of the military structure, purpose and goal. They are part of tactics and strategy and they are either directly or tacitly stimulated by the army and political leadership.

They are part of the way armies in war function. Racism, etnnocentricity and dehumanisation of the enemy are part of its effort to create warriors and men who are willing and able to kill. Its the army that purposefully creates callousness, violence and the mentality that is necessary for people to break down the barrier to actually kill somebody...and instills a feeling of privilege.

WWII Japan...women were forced into camps and brothels for soldiers to have sex with....to use and to rape. They were required to do so...the purpose was to maintain morale, controll and to dehumanise the enemy, to establish a sentiment of superiority.

After WWII the US occupation of Japan required the Japanese government to supply prostitutes...reasons: otherwise the army would not be able to maintain order and rapes in civilian population would happen.

This was not because there was some rapist gene going around amongst soldiers...but because soldiers were structurally and pusposefull exposed to racial dehumanisation of the enemy and instilled with feelings of privilege....as part of military purpose and strategy.

Armies have always stuggled to maintain the balance between creating "sociopaths" willing and able to kill on a large scale...and people being able to function normally in society. Strict discipline and enforcement of social rules is necessary to maintain that balance.

If that is not maintained because there is no strong leadership...asystematic rapes occur... If the army is unwilling to enforce that...systematic rapes occur. Because the army has created that environment and tacitly support its occurence or directly stimulates or, in some cases, orders soldiers to behave in such a way.

The arm,y is part of the establishment...and the establishment sees women as items, objects to be used by men. Its part of the parftirchical view of society. And therefore the army uses this view to instill privilege. Its mysogeny and sex is used as an object of control.

GallowsBird

29th May 2011, 19:33

I contend that the USSR's participation in the war had little to do with international socialism and a lot to do with patriotic nationalism.

Or maybe fighting for survival against an enemy that had invaded their country and had been killing citizens in their thousands. Just saying...

RED DAVE

29th May 2011, 19:33

[1] I advocate different punishments for the rapes of women belonging to different classes.

[2] I do not oppose the rape of ruling class women because I sympathize with them; I oppose them solely because any rape is an indirect attack on the womanhood of our female comrades.You're a real pig.

RED DAVE

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 19:35

It was not the "misfortune" of ruling class women to live under Nazi rule. They were rather fortunate to live luxurious lives which the colonial, Jewish and the working class population in their own country paid for. And keeping this in mind, I advocate different punishments for the rapes of women belonging to different classes. I do not oppose the rape of ruling class women because I sympathize with them; I oppose them solely because any rape is an indirect attack on the womanhood of our female comrades.

I find this bullshit...and rapist apology...sorry. To say rape of woman of a "higher" class should be punished less...is actually saying it matters less.

∞

29th May 2011, 19:37

You guys are getting this thread unencessarily complicated.

Rape is bad...mmmmkay?

∞

29th May 2011, 19:37

In fact its absolutely repulsive.

NoOneIsIllegal

29th May 2011, 19:38

And keeping this in mind, I advocate different punishments for the rapes of women belonging to different classes. I do not oppose the rape of ruling class women because I sympathize with them; I oppose them solely because any rape is an indirect attack on the womanhood of our female comrades.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Just... whoa.

red cat

29th May 2011, 19:38

You're a real pig.

RED DAVE

A communist pig, unlike a bourgeois peacock that you are.

red cat

29th May 2011, 19:39

I find this bullshit...and rapist apology...sorry. To say rape of woman of a "higher" class should be punished less...is actually saying it matters less.

You seriously mean to say that you do not differentiate class-wise between the rape of a worker by a capitalist and the opposite of it?

NoOneIsIllegal

29th May 2011, 19:41

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 19:42

You seriously mean to say that you do not differentiate class-wise between the rape of a worker by a capitalist and the opposite of it?

yes. Because rape has nothing at all to do with class.

red cat

29th May 2011, 19:44

All rape is bad. As much as I hate the bourgeoisie, it's pretty sickening to hear that some rape may be considered a slap on the wrist to you. Rape is never justifiable and should always be punished, no matter what class.

I agree 100%.

Rape shouldn't matter in terms of class, because it's a horrifying and sickening experience for any woman (or man). This is not true. This argument can even be extended to physical annihilation. A capitalist killing a worker is not the same as a worker killing a capitalist.

Invader Zim

29th May 2011, 19:44

You seriously mean to say that you do not differentiate class-wise between the rape of a worker by a capitalist and the opposite of it?

No. But you do. Which makes you a reactionarly apologist for the most vile act of misogyny.

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 19:47

I agree 100%.

This is not true. This argument can even be extended to physical annihilation. A capitalist killing a worker is not the same as a worker killing a capitalist.

No it can not. Answer me this: why is it not the same?

RED DAVE

29th May 2011, 19:47

You're a real pig.
A communist pig, unlike a bourgeois peacock that you are.You're a disgrace to the word communist.

RED DAVE

Nolan

29th May 2011, 19:50

Sorry, but this is pure unmitigated bullshit of the lowest order. Just because a horrific crime has been inflicted on a people does not make it understandable for hundreds of thousands of that nations soldiers to wage a campaign of rape against the aggressor nations women.

It may be a possible identifiable reason why some soldiers justified to themselves their own misogynist criminality, but it doesn't make rape understandable; unless of course you are a misogynist rapist.

It's understandable why it happened. You could even say it was inevitable. Not "gee, Private Rapilev, it's really terrible what you and the men in your unit did to those girls, but it's understandable so it's totally ok."

What's regrettable is that German civilians reaped what the German state sowed.

red cat

29th May 2011, 19:51

No it can not. Answer me this: why is it not the same?

You tell me why.

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 19:53

You tell me why.

Well...I can not tell you why its not the same since I think its exactly the same. So its your claim...explain it.

red cat

29th May 2011, 19:57

Well...I can not tell you why its not the same since I think its exactly the same. So its your claim...explain it.

Because in one case it is the retaliation of a worker who thinks of it as a correct way of taking revenge for all the exploitation he has endured, including possibly the rape of women close to him, while in the other it is just a capitalist finding one more way of exploiting a worker and sending a message of dominance to the proletariat.

red cat

29th May 2011, 19:59

You're a disgrace to the word communist.

RED DAVE

An anti-communist like you does not have the right to judge that in the first place.

Rooster

29th May 2011, 20:00

Fucking unbelievable.

Invader Zim

29th May 2011, 20:00

It's understandable why it happened. You could even say it was inevitable. Not "gee, Private Rapilev, it's really terrible what you and the men in your unit did to those girls, but it's understandable so it's totally ok."

What's regrettable is that German civilians reaped what the German state sowed.

No. It doesn't make it understandable. It is an excuse. And a poor one.

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 20:01

Because in one case it is the retaliation of a worker who thinks of it as a correct way of taking revenge for all the exploitation he has endured, including possibly the rape of women close to him, while in the other it is just a capitalist finding one more way of exploiting a worker and sending a message of dominance to the proletariat.

Riiight... you are crazy. Sorry.

That has nothing to do with it. Rape is always an expression of power....wethe committed by a capitalist or proletarian...wether committed to women or to men. Its NOT in any way shape or form an expression of class.

S.Artesian

29th May 2011, 21:02

Ele'ill

29th May 2011, 21:14

Tell all you apologists what: I'd rather totally disassociate with this creepfest that Revleft has become because of the bullshit spewed by the likes of Red Cat, Nolan, Cockshott, etc. etc. etc than tolerate another second of this.

If there's a moderator or admin out there who doesn't find this thread a total abomination to what revolutionary struggle is supposed to articulate, then that shows how fucked up Revleft is at its higher levels.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/oppose-rape-but-t155486/index.html

When people start to sympathise with those rapes from a 'historical view' they validate those actions taking place in current times as well. There is no excuse for it- no amount of explaining will justify it.

red cat

29th May 2011, 21:18

That has nothing to do with it. Rape is always an expression of power....wethe committed by a capitalist or proletarian...wether committed to women or to men. Its NOT in any way shape or form an expression of class.

Every kind of violent interaction between two individuals from antagonizing classes is heavily influenced by class contradictions.

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 21:19

Every kind of violent interaction between two individuals from antagonizing classes is heavily influenced by class contradictions.

no...its not.

Jose Gracchus

29th May 2011, 22:18

Let's see a shred of evidence for that assertion, numbnuts. Or do you feel at all a need to demonstrate some vomitus from your gullet has any relation to the real world, especially when you're exploring the conceptual possibilities of, apparently, "proletarian rape." You're a vile disgrace.

Red Future

29th May 2011, 22:25

Jose Gracchus

29th May 2011, 22:29

Proof? Or do you just feel the need to sympathize with "noble" "proletarian rapists"? I didn't know empty unjustified assertions passed muster here.

red cat

29th May 2011, 22:32

Christ....I hope no one is defending the Rapes ...they were a bad thing that is undoubted.But this action was the result of another action....Nazi brutality triggered Soviet Brutality here.If the horrific actions of the Nazis on men,women and children in the USSR had not occured , the Red Army would not have been so brutal.

Unfortunately some posters here have to fulfill their reactionary goal of indicating that the Red Army was just as bad as the Nazis. So they will try to equate Nazi atrocities with Soviet retaliation, and distort the words of anyone who opposes them.

Red Future

29th May 2011, 22:35

"noble" "proletarian rapists"

Impossible ..for a leftist thats an Oxymoron.
I dont think I need to post proof of Nazi crimes , thats a topic known well enough here.

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 22:36

anybody who justifies rape in any way shape or form or states that rape is in anyway less of an attrocity when committed against non socialists...or justifies the raping of women who do not belong to the proletariat as somehow less of a crime should not name themselves socialists or be on this site.

Red Future

29th May 2011, 22:37

Futheremore there is no reason to tar every Red Army Private with Rape accusations,many may have yes... but not all.

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 22:40

this thread really needs to close before it gets out of hand...and it causes a rift here.

Red Future

29th May 2011, 22:42

this thread really needs to close before it gets out of hand...and it causes a rift here.

Agreed totally....though I will say that it was an issue that had to be talked over rather than ignored

∞

29th May 2011, 22:42

Unfortunately some posters here have to fulfill their reactionary goal of indicating that the Red Army was just as bad as the Nazis. So they will try to equate Nazi atrocities with Soviet retaliation, and distort the words of anyone who opposes them.

Oh, grow the fuck up, us reactionaries have no "agenda" to equate the USSR with Nazi Germany.

RedSunRising

29th May 2011, 22:45

So, either the "socialist" government of the USSR had failed in what we might called socialist moral education or we are not dealing with socialism.

RED DAVE

I disagree with Red Cat, mainly because of the psychological warping that is involved in the act of rape on both parties but you are forgetting the genocidal assult on the Soviet people in which vast swathes of their population was wiped out by the fascists when you blame the Soviet education system.

RedSunRising

29th May 2011, 22:52

∞

29th May 2011, 22:54

Execution seems fair to me...

red cat

29th May 2011, 23:28

It should be pointed out that the normal Maoist line is the death penalty for rape, so when Red Cat is calling for minimal punishment he means what a lot of people here would advocate as punishment for rape under normal circumstances.

The funniest part is that, many of those who are demanding heavy punishment for the likes of Soviet soldiers will probably oppose execution of capitalists who commit serial rapes. Somehow all their morality ends up in favour of the ruling classes.

∞

29th May 2011, 23:32

The funniest part is that, many of those who are demanding heavy punishment for the likes of Soviet soldiers will probably oppose execution of capitalists who commit serial rapes. Somehow all their morality ends up in favour of the ruling classes.

So in other words, it matters to you whos doing the raping?

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 23:33

one word: Saptari

because Maoists never rape :rolleyes:

red cat

29th May 2011, 23:33

So in other words, it matter to you doing the raping?
Meaning ?

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 23:35

Meaning ?

meaning gthat yhou find it less of a crime when a proletarian rapes a woman...

RedSunRising

29th May 2011, 23:37

meaning gthat yhou find it less of a crime when a proletarian rapes a woman...

Obviously not in most circumstances HOWEVER we have to remember the genocidal war against the Soviet people and the discovery of the death camps and what that did to people's psychology. That is all that he is saying.

Do you agree with the death penalty for rape under normal circumstances?

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 23:39

Obviously not in most circumstances HOWEVER we have to remember the genocidal war against the Soviet people and the discovery of the death camps and what that did to people's psychology. That is all that he is saying.

Do you agree with the death penalty for rape under normal circumstances?

I do not agree with the death penalty period.

Also..not an excuse.

However what you all are overlooking is Makdun. Where the Red Army did allow and encourage rapes...giving soldiers leave gto go about town as they pleased.

RedSunRising

29th May 2011, 23:41

I do not agree with the death penalty period.

However what you all are overlooking is Makdun. Where the Red Army did allow and encourage rapes...giving soldiers leave gto go about town as they pleased.

Im not trying to excuse it. Rape under no circumstances should be used as a weapon of war. If the Red Army did encourage it, which I dont believe they did, than it was wrong of them.

What do you believe should be the penalty for rape?

Omsk

29th May 2011, 23:41

red cat

29th May 2011, 23:43

one word: Saptari

because Maoists never rape :rolleyes:

Who is paying you to post these? If it's someone from Nepal then I assure you that Nepalese currency is too cheap for all your troubles.

http://www.nepalnewsarchive.com.np/archive/2005/aug/aug23/news11.php

‘Maoists were involved in the rape'; Saptari CDO, 'The allegations are false': Maoists

There have been allegations and counter-allegations between local authorities and Maoist insurgents regarding alleged rape of a number of dalit women in the southern district of Saptari last week.

Talking to Nepalnews Tuesday, chief district officer of Saptari, Tilak Ram Sharma, blamed the Maoists for Friday’s incident. He said he had visited Koshibandh at Jagatpur VDC—where the incident took place—Tuesday morning.

Sharma quoted local villagers as saying that nearly two dozen armed insurgents visited the village Friday evening and asked them to prepare food. After dinner, they allegedly raped women members of the families in the presence of their family members. Before leaving the village, they threatened the villagers not to tell anything about the incident to anybody.

CDO Sharma said he was able to speak to only one of the victims but that the number of rape victims could be much more than that.

“The nature of the crime tells that the criminals were none other than Maoist insurgents,” Sharma said. “The district administration is investigating the incident,” he said. He did not elaborate.

Meanwhile, an area committee member of the Maoists, Prabin, has called local media persons over phone and refuted allegations. District Secretary of the CPN (Maoist) of Saptari has also refuted such allegations, reports said.

The Maoists said they have captured a person with criminal background on charge of raping village women posing as the Maoists. They said they were investigating the incident and also looking for more people said to be involved in the incident.

The Maoists have also called for independent investigation of the incident.

Human rights groups including Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC) have condemned the incident and called for bringing the culprit to book. nepalnews.com by/pd Aug 23 05

red cat

29th May 2011, 23:45

So in other words, it matters to you doing the raping?

Circumstances do matter. Particularly the genocidal conditions of WW2 should be considered separately. There are many other points too.

∞

29th May 2011, 23:49

Circumstances do matter. Particularly the genocidal conditions of WW2 should be considered separately. There are many other points too.

I think you invented a new form discrimination, one were the poor are penalized less than the rich, what should we call it?

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 23:50

Close this thread please,very few of the users here posted any information about the actual subject,but just derailed the thread and started to argue about other things.

@above:the Red Army didn't encourage rape..

In Mukden the USSR let their troops go about the towns as they pleased. They were not punished, prosecuted or stopped when rapes occured on large scale....in this you have to compete with the communist party of China who protested their policies to the PB.

INTERESTINGLY...a lot of the troops in Mukden were send there...from Berlin.

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 23:52

Who is paying you to post these? If it's someone from Nepal then I assure you that Nepalese currency is too cheap for all your troubles.

http://www.nepalnewsarchive.com.np/archive/2005/aug/aug23/news11.php

I actually went more for the Dalit victims testimonies...as well as the countless testimonies of former Maoist women and men who deserted because of ill treatment and sexual assault. But hey... no other sources than the Maoists can be trusted...and they are all saints and they all tell the truth.
:rolleyes:

red cat

29th May 2011, 23:53

I think you invented a new form discrimination, one were the poor are penalized more than the rich, what should we call it?

I can't see how this is linked to anything I posted.

∞

29th May 2011, 23:54

I meant less.

RedSunRising

29th May 2011, 23:55

INTERESTINGLY...a lot of the troops in Mukden were send there...from Berlin.

How do you believe rape should be punished?

RED DAVE

29th May 2011, 23:55

The funniest part is that, many of those who are demanding heavy punishment for the likes of Soviet soldiers will probably oppose execution of capitalists who commit serial rapes. Somehow all their morality ends up in favour of the ruling classes.Really pathetic. Maoism in all its glory.

RED DAVE

red cat

29th May 2011, 23:57

I actually went more for the Dalit victims testimonies

So wise of you. :rolleyes: The main Maoist mass bases are among Dalit communities and around half of the recruits are women. In Saptari Maoist cadre had caught and punished many upper-caste reactionaries that raped dalit women. The false charges were a retaliation to that.

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 23:58

How do you believe rape should be punished?

Either by ostracation or by isolating the culprit from society.

brigadista

29th May 2011, 23:58

using rape in war is barbarism no matter WHO is doing it

PhoenixAsh

29th May 2011, 23:58

So wise of you. :rolleyes: The main Maoist mass bases are among Dalit communities and around half of the recruits are women. In Saptari Maoist cadre had caught and punished many upper-caste reactionaries that raped dalit women. The false charges were a retaliation to that.

riiight. So let me get this straight...Dalits in Maoist territory are being raped by reactionary capitalists and then testify against the Maoists. Sure..why the hell not.

RedSunRising

29th May 2011, 23:59

I actually went more for the Dalit victims testimonies...as well as the countless testimonies of former Maoist women and men who deserted because of ill treatment and sexual assault. But hey... no other sources than the Maoists can be trusted...and they are all saints and they all tell the truth.
:rolleyes:

Women hold key positions in the Party and the Army...And the Army is almost 50 per cent female....But Im sure you believe Salwa Judum is an independent tribal self defense grouping.

red cat

30th May 2011, 00:00

Really pathetic. Maoism in all its glory.

RED DAVE

So, should I conclude that the drama that you and your henchmen are creating right now in another thread is Trotskyism in all its glory?

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 00:00

using rape in war is barbarism no matter WHO is doing it

I hope no one would disagree with this.

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 00:02

riiight. So let me get this straight...Dalits in Maoist territory are being raped by reactionary capitalists and then testify against the Maoists. Sure..why the hell not.

This is part of the state's propaganda war. They offer people money to rat on the insurgents and to accuse them of all sorts of stuff. Independent people who have been in Maoist held territory have testified though that the insurgents and people are one.

red cat

30th May 2011, 00:02

riiight. So let me get this straight...Dalits in Maoist territory are being raped by reactionary capitalists and then testify against the Maoists. Sure..why the hell not.

You are really a brick.

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 00:06

Of course Hindsight is telling us how he thinks rape should be punished....

red cat

30th May 2011, 00:10

Either by ostracation or by isolating the culprit from society.

Are you mad? I advocate imprisonment and in times of military emergency, hard labour for even the milder cases in WW2. Posters from your side are demanding greater punishments.

PhoenixAsh

30th May 2011, 00:11

Women hold key positions in the Party and the Army...And the Army is almost 50 per cent female....But Im sure you believe Salwa Judum is an independent tribal self defense grouping.

seeing as they are funded and adpoted by the government they are not.
On the other hand I do not believe the line you two toe here that Maoists are saints.

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 00:12

Are you mad? I advocate imprisonment and in times of military emergency, hard labour for even the milder cases in WW2. Posters from your side are demanding greater punishments.

This is the point...Red Cat was advocating much harder punishments yet he gets called an apologist for rape!!!

The whole case against him is a giant troll.

PhoenixAsh

30th May 2011, 00:15

Are you mad? I advocate imprisonment and in times of military emergency, hard labour for even the milder cases in WW2. Posters from your side are demanding greater punishments.

So you are in effect advocating slavery.

I do not care what other posters of "my side" think.

red cat

30th May 2011, 00:18

So you are in effect advocating slavery.

I do not care what other posters of "my side" think.

This is turning out to be pure gold.

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 00:19

So you are in effect advocating slavery.

I do not care what other posters of "my side" think.

It is you that are the apolagist for rape.

Whatever rapes that happened in Germany at that time everybody is saying that they were wrong and should not have happened.

Your attitude to such a serious crime is disgusting.

red cat

30th May 2011, 00:20

This is the point...Red Cat was advocating much harder punishments yet he gets called an apologist for rape!!!

The whole case against him is a giant troll.

I think that it has more to do with political tendency than the stand on the topic itself, keeping in mind some of the posters who started attacking me in this thread.

PhoenixAsh

30th May 2011, 00:27

It is you that are the apolagist for rape.
Whatever rapes that happened in Germany at that time everybody is saying that they were wrong and should not have happened. Your attitude to such a serious crime is disgusting.

riiight... nice turn of the tables. But...unfortunately it doesn't fly. In effect you are backing RC and he is advocating seperation of punishment based on class conditions. In effect you two are arguing that such crimes committed by proletarians are less serious and less of an offense simply because the culprit is somebody belonging to the proletarian class. In effect yhou are saying rape of a burgeoisie or petit-burgeoisie woman is less of an offense.

That is something that is far different from what punishment should be measured out....which...has nothing to do with appologizing for a crime. Because I think all rapists should be punished equally...regardless of the class of the victim.

So...does not fly. But nice try to try and shift the focus away from your own methods. counter accusations seems to be something Maoists are good at.

PhoenixAsh

30th May 2011, 00:30

This is the point...Red Cat was advocating much harder punishments yet he gets called an apologist for rape!!!

The whole case against him is a giant troll.

The harshness of the punishment does not matter...its irrelevant to the underlying argument that the status of the victim should be the determining factor in the punishment...NOT the crime...which was what RC was saying.

But then again...nice to notice your readiness to extinguish human life. That says a lot about you.

Le LibÃ©rer

30th May 2011, 00:36

And I find you to be an idiot. I've already explained why that's ridiculous.
You call this an explanation? And you call me an idiot? :rolleyes:

I didn't say it was "ok," I said it was understandable. Obviously using rape to demoralize those who think are your enemy is deplorable, but if I don't actually literally say that in the post I'm the bad guy. It doesn't even need to be said.

The causes of it are obvious to anyone who doesn't have a cartoon view of the world where we execute every single rapist in the mutual bloodbath that was WWII. Which is a great deal of this forum judging by the wave of thanks you got.

red cat

30th May 2011, 00:39

riiight... nice turn of the tables. But...unfortunately it doesn't fly. In effect you are backing RC and he is advocating seperation of punishment based on class conditions. In effect you two are arguing that such crimes committed by proletarians are less serious and less of an offense simply because the culprit is somebody belonging to the proletarian class. In effect yhou are saying rape of a burgeoisie or petit-burgeoisie woman is less of an offense.

That is something that is far different from what punishment should be measured out....which...has nothing to do with appologizing for a crime. Because I think all rapists should be punished equally...regardless of the class of the victim.

It is not at all that simple. A random worker will usually not sneak into a capitalist's mansion and rape his wife or daughter, while the rape of working women in workplaces in usual workdays and workers' slums during mercenary attacks happens all the time by capitalists and their hired thugs. The crimes committed on capitalist women by workers during retaliatory violence should not be punished by execution other than in exceptional cases, while it is most often what capitalists and their agents deserve.

So...does not fly. But nice try to try and shift the focus away from your own methods. counter accusations seems to be something Maoists are good at.Talking of your "focus", how is the funeral of class politics going on? I say, from now on let's not even punish capitalists for oppressing the proletariat. That should be even more convenient for you.

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 00:42

The harshness of the punishment does not matter...its irrelevant to the underlying argument that the status of the victim should be the determining factor in the punishment..

We were debating the harshness of the punishment though, werent we? And it wasnt so much about the status of the victim so much but all that the Soviet troops had been through and the hatred created for the enemy by that people were saying such be taken into account. And yes rape should never be used as weapon of war or at all for that matter.

PhoenixAsh

30th May 2011, 00:45

It is not at all that simple. A random worker will usually not sneak into a capitalist's mansion and rape his wife or daughter, while the rape of working women in workplaces and workers' slums during mercenary attacks happens all the time by capitalists and their hired thugs. The crimes committed on capitalist women by workers during retaliatory violence should not be punished by execution other than in exceptional cases, while it is most often what capitalists and their agents deserve.

It is however that simple. Rape is an act of violence committed most commonly against a specific gender. Raping a woman as punishment on her husband for example...is just as much making women property than the very ancient tradition of rape as being a crime against property justified and allowable by the bounty of war justification. To argue against that and to allow such crimes to be punished by lesser punishment is supporting the idea of women as property and its tacit justification of such crimes as something else than the crime. In effect it communicates: rape is not so much of a crime if committed against burgeoisie and is communicating that rape is a tool in the class war.

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 00:49

It is however that simple. Rape is an act of violence committed most commonly against a specific gender. Raping a woman as punishment on her husband for example...is just as much making women property than the very ancient tradition of rape as being a crime against property justified and allowable by the bounty of war justification. To argue against that and to allow such crimes to be punished by lesser punishment is supporting the idea of women as property and its tacit justification of such crimes as something else than the crime. In effect it communicates: rape is not so much of a crime if committed against burgeoisie and is communicating that rape is a tool in the class war.

And you are deliberately distorting what he was saying.

He wasnt advocating rape as a weapon of class war.

He was saying rape used in vengence on the ruling class for their use of it should be punished less than rape in normal circumstances.

PhoenixAsh

30th May 2011, 00:53

We were debating the harshness of the punishment though, werent we? And it wasnt so much about the status of the victim so much but all that the Soviet troops had been through and the hatred created for the enemy by that people were saying such be taken into account. And yes rape should never be used as weapon of war or at all for that matter.

No..actually we weren't. We were debating wether or not the class of the victim should matter in determining the sentence. Then YOU tried to focus the attention away from that absolutely disgusting position by trying to make it about the nature of the punishment.

So now we are appologise for the rapists by pointing out their horrid past? Because we can draw analogies here...As long as the past is horrid enough...rape is understandable? No...it also does not clear the army command of its guilt and culpability in creating the circumstances and in fact have a policy of looking the other way and/or directly stimulating these crimes.

PhoenixAsh

30th May 2011, 00:54

And you are deliberately distorting what he was saying.

He wasnt advocating rape as a weapon of class war.

He was saying rape used in vengence on the ruling class for their use of it should be punished less than rape in normal circumstances.

Are you actually understanding what you are writing here? Because the conclusion is that he is saying that rape is less of a crime when you argue your motives in the construction of class warfare. Fuck that.

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 00:59

Are you actually understanding what you are writing here? Because the conclusion is that he is saying that rape is less of a crime when you argue your motives in the construction of class warfare. Fuck that.

Do you not understand that capitalist secuirity forces all over the world use rape as a weapon? Not all of us are from comfy Imperialist citidals. When it happens to your mom or sister or best friend often more than once it might trigger some people to avenge them by paying an eye for an eye which in this case is wrong to do, if someone has been driven to that point than yes they should be punished but the motive of vengence should be taken into account. If a proletarian rapes another proletarian than they should die. Thats what he was saying. So please less of your first worldist moralizing at Red Cat.

And please mods trash this thread!

∞

30th May 2011, 01:04

red cat

30th May 2011, 01:06

So relatives of the Soviet troops were raped?

Raped, shot, the living tied with corpses and drowned. Want to hear more?

Also, from what I've read the Soviets raped more women then the Germans did.

Read where ?

PhoenixAsh

30th May 2011, 01:08

Do you not understand that capitalist secuirity forces all over the world use rape as a weapon? Not all of us are from comfy Imperialist citidals. When it happens to your mom or sister or best friend often more than once it might trigger some people to avenge them by paying an eye for an eye which in this case is wrong to do, if someone has been driven to that point than yes they should be punished but the motive of vengence should be taken into account. If a proletarian rapes another proletarian than they should die. Thats what he was saying. So please less of your first worldist moralizing at Red Cat.

And please mods trash this thread!

Riight...because I have no idea what the hell I am talking about. I have never experienced anything like that and therefore I can not be motivated by anything else than first worldist moralism....sure.

So you condone viewing women as property. Because I am sure as hell 100% certain that those raped women had nothing to do with the security forces raping other women...and a such its extracting vengeance on them for something they didn't do to get bac at their entire class, their husbands, brothers, sons, nephews, uncles...what ever. In fact its the same exact line of arguments used to justify mass rapes based on ethnicity or nationality....and its the exact same basis for rapes being condoned in warfare by rights of conquest. Women as property...who can be used and deviled to punish others.

I am all for taking circumstances into account when judging crimes. But when you have experienced the effects on rape on the victims...and be damned sure as hell that I know very fucking well what I am talking about here...than I argue the exact opposite. When you KNOW what it does then you should be punished more and harder when you commit the same crime...

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 01:19

So you condone viewing women as property.

I dont.

30th May 2011, 01:21

So relatives of the Soviet troops were raped?

Also, from what I've read the Soviets raped more women then the Germans did.

Does your reading of WW2 consist of German newspapers from 1945 or something?

PhoenixAsh

30th May 2011, 01:23

I dont.

yes...you do...because you want to punish that view less...because its understandable...reread your own posts.

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 01:29

yes...you do...because you want to punish that view less...because its understandable...reread your own posts.

Those who choose to marry, hang out with and stay with members of the secuirity forces are at the very least even from your twisted understanding responsible (if not largely responsible) if they say happened to get blown up because of that, no? You dont understand the hatred that the elite and their defenders have towards the toiling masses. Class war is just that, a war between classes, which is often very brutal.

Again I dont think that rape is EVER OKAY or NOT A BIG DEAL.

hatzel

30th May 2011, 01:56

So...ah...who here's British? How many days ago was it when even the Sun, that bastion of revolutionary leftist politics (:rolleyes:), was attacking Ken Clarke for his 'some rapes are more "serious" than others' comments? Don't you think it's strange that pretty much everybody, even centrists, were saying how such comments were unacceptable, that there's no such thing as more or less serious rapes...and now red cat does exactly that, and supposed leftists are jumping to his defense? Oh me oh my...

PhoenixAsh

30th May 2011, 02:10

Those who choose to marry, hang out with and stay with members of the secuirity forces are at the very least even from your twisted understanding responsible (if not largely responsible)
if they say happened to get blown up because of that, no?

No...they are not because of that.

But lets argue this reversely...so all the women and children in the house which also houses enemies of...o...lets say Israel or the US...are naturally and by your logic at the very least responsible (if not largely responsible) if they happen to say to get blown up because of that.

You dont understand the hatred that the elite and their defenders have towards the toiling masses.

And its all about an eye for an eye...right?

Class war is just that, a war between classes, which is often very brutal.

So?

Again I dont think that rape is EVER OKAY or NOT A BIG DEAL.

But apparantly when somebody of the proletariat does it to somebody of the burgeoisie or petit-burgeoisie its less not ok and less of a big deal as the other way around...

jake williams

30th May 2011, 02:24

there's no such thing as more or less serious rapes
There are more or less horrible forms of slavery, more or less horrible ethnic cleansings, more or less horrible incidence of torture, etc. None of them are ever acceptable. The moral equation of all non-consensual sex is totally inane.

I also don't think anyone believes it in real life. No one thinks that a woman sleeping with her boss where the former's job status is implied to be in question (and for what it's worth, a significant amount of non-consensual sex during wartime is nominally "consensual") is the same as a child being raped by multiple people and killed. Asserting otherwise is dishonest at best.

PhoenixAsh

30th May 2011, 02:29

There are more or less horrible forms of slavery, more or less horrible ethnic cleansings, more or less horrible incidence of torture, etc. None of them are ever acceptable. The moral equation of all non-consensual sex is totally inane.

I also don't think anyone believes it in real life. No one thinks that a woman sleeping with her boss where the former's job status is implied to be in question (and for what it's worth, a significant amount of non-consensual sex during wartime is nominally "consensual") is the same as a child being raped by multiple people and killed. Asserting otherwise is dishonest at best.

So tell me...how on your scale does the highlighted incident rank when the culprits are burgeoisie and the victims are proletarians and when the situation is reversed. Because that is what we are talking about.

jake williams

30th May 2011, 02:34

So tell me...how on your scale does the highlighted incident rank when the culprits are burgeoisie and the victims are proletarians and when the situation is reversed. Because that is what we are talking about.
I think the idea of dismissing, nevermind advocating, sexual violence as a form of class politics is repellent, and those who have done so don't belong here. But I find it very offensive when people argue that it's possible to morally equate all non-consensual sex, because I think, ultimately, it minimizes the issue.

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 02:51

I think the idea of dismissing, nevermind advocating, sexual violence as a form of class politics is repellent, and those who have done so don't belong here.

No one was doing that here however.

hatzel

30th May 2011, 03:03

I think the idea of dismissing, nevermind advocating, sexual violence as a form of class politics is repellent, and those who have done so don't belong here.No one was doing that here however.

Oh?

It was not the "misfortune" of ruling class women to live under Nazi rule. They were rather fortunate to live luxurious lives which the colonial, Jewish and the working class population in their own country paid for. And keeping this in mind, I advocate different punishments for the rapes of women belonging to different classes. I do not oppose the rape of ruling class women because I sympathize with them; I oppose them solely because any rape is an indirect attack on the womanhood of our female comrades.

Every kind of violent interaction between two individuals from antagonizing classes is heavily influenced by class contradictions.

Because in one case it is the retaliation of a worker who thinks of it as a correct way of taking revenge for all the exploitation he has endured, including possibly the rape of women close to him, while in the other it is just a capitalist finding one more way of exploiting a worker and sending a message of dominance to the proletariat.

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 03:07

Oh?

Placing in context is not dismissing or advocating.

But you seem to be forgetting that ruling class women are our enemies, that they are somehow innocents . Given what the proletariat and oppressed nations are going through across the globe at the moment how can you forget that? They are complict in the rape of our sisters.

S.Artesian

30th May 2011, 03:10

One more time: Any man committing rape against any woman for any reason under any circumstances is committing a counterrevolutionary act.

Please feel free to announce your disagreement.

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 03:16

One more time: Any man committing rape against any woman for any reason under any circumstances is committing a counterrevolutionary act.

Please feel free to announce your disagreement.

I wont disagree with that and neither will Red Cat.

S.Artesian

30th May 2011, 03:23

He was saying rape used in vengence on the ruling class for their use of it should be punished less than rape in normal circumstances.

And that is about as fucked up a piece of shit argument as I've ever heard. That argument simply reproduces the social relations that women are property, and some destruction of property is worse than others.

Revolutionary armies have consistently rejected such a notion, and punished rape against bourgeois women, or the women of an enemy class, without distinction based on class.

It's supposed to be retaliation for "what the enemy did"? So tell us, great red warriors, how about the children, and infants of the bourgeoisie? Should those who bash those children's brains out, or who impale them on bayonets be punished less because those children are privileged, rich, and most probably infected with ruling class ideology?

You pseudo-red cats and stars are a disgrace to the real history of revolutionary armies and the struggle against the counterrevolutionary notions of women and children as property.

RedSunRising

30th May 2011, 03:27

And that is about as fucked up a piece of shit argument as I've ever heard. That argument simply reproduces the social relations that women are property, and some destruction of property is worse than others.

No it doesnt at all, please stop twisting. The enemy is the enemy regardless of gender.

Infact it could be said that your argument that the women of the ruling class are reasonless and will-less beings with no responsibility for the rape and torture of our sisters and brothers is pretty sexist.