How many German woman were raped when the Soviets conquered Berlin?

I'm not trolling here, I was having a discussion with a (semi-communist) friend the other day. He defends the USSR and all their actions up to Khrushchev. He considers himself a 'humanist"', so I asked him how many women the Red Army raped when they conquered Berlin. He replied with "how many Native Americans did the Colonialists rape when they conquered America" etc etc.

I really had no answer for him. My only answer was the Americans did a whole lot less raping than the Soviets did. It didn't feel very adequate though.

American colonialists have raped women, therefore we can just ignore the rape of German women by Red Army troops, because logic. This is a typical deflection by 'semi-communists' (Soviet apologists and whatnot).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you...nching_Negroes

The highest number I can find is 2 million but the exact number is probably lost to history but the idea of comparing two atrocities to measure which is worse seems vulgar.

What are you basing this on exactly? Americans have committed some stomach turning atrocities in their time.

Colonel Chivington's men came back and killed many of the wounded. They also scalped many of the dead, regardless of whether they were women, children or infants. Chivington and his men dressed their weapons, hats and gear with scalps and other body parts, including human fetuses and male and female genitalia. They also publicly displayed these battle trophies in Denver's Apollo Theater and area saloons.

I don't think there are good numbers on how many woman have been raped by the red army or on how many woman have been raped by colonists. The main point of your rebuttal should be that colonists raping woman is no defense for the crimes committed by the red army. an argument on who raped more woman is vulgar and useless.

It is ironic that a humanist would defend both the USSR and it's mass rape, but it should be noted that the American military also committed mass rape in ww2 as well. I think 2 million is the normal statistic for the ussr though, that number might just be for germany and not other territories occupied by the Soviets however

The difference between the red army behavior and the US army was that in the redarmy mass rape was defacto sanctioned as a retaliation punishment. The first two days of conquering a town the redarmy wouldnt deploy commisars to halt atrocities and in Berlin it took months.
Obviously the USA would commit mass atrocities in Japan, and later Vietnam and a whole lot of different places but there was a distinct difference in conduct in Europe influenced by how the respective nations viewed the war and the enemy.
Not much different actually on how the French after worlwar 1 set out to completely humiliate the Germans which the english and Americans objected too.
The fact that these nations obviously never faced the same behavior from the Germans on their soil is obviously a big part in that.

But yeah, playing the "but x did it too" card is bullshit and disgusting.

Eh, I'm not playing the x did it too card, I just wanted to point it out before this turns into something stupid since we're in OI. Anyhow, it's really unlikely that American commanders didn't known it was happening. To me there is not much of a difference in intent between ordering it to happen and allowing men under your command to continue doing it without giving an explicit order. The Americans don't get a free pass on this one in my mind.

Didnt say you did, i was saying the guy in the OP did.

No, obviously not, but the fact remains that it where under the western comand incidents, even if hapening more reguarly than we know it where still incidents, while in the redarmy conquest of germany it was a given, a defacto sanctioned offical policy.
If you where caught raping in the west you where if command was function rightly court marshalled, if it happend under the russian command you where only court martialed if it happend after these two days free for all. Which is incitement to, structural allowance of and official tollerance towards. Hence it happend a shit load more.

What all these people who appologise for red army rapes fail to grasp is that having a understanding of why regualar soldiers where doing it (it was all but encouraged by the leadership, the germans did it to them first, because of the more massive losses the red army was more poorly trained and less disciplined etc etc) doesnt mean its excusable.
I understand how the huttu' s came to killing the tutsi's, i understand how priests rape kids on a massive scale and got a way with it for centuries, i even understand how the nazi's ended up killing milions of "untermenschen", yet all that doesnt mean its excusable, let alone should be supported. Same goes for the red army rapes.

I think it's worth pointing out that Allied forces weren't paragons of virtue trying to stamp out rapists. They would often turn a blind eye.

Emphasis mine. Imagine what that phrase actually means.

Yeah i know, yet it was still more a crime of opportunity as happens in all war (drunk soldiers taking advantage of their position) and not wielded as a weapon of mass retalitation.
Its like saying that some teachers rape kids too so the catholic priest rapes are not exceptional. Sure in all situations where people can take advantage of others and get away with it sexual abuse happens, but when its encouraged, facilitated, etc etc it becomes more than the "normal"

Is there an actual source for the estimation of 2 million? There were hardly that many soldiers in Germanyat a time, meaning over half of the red army committed rape which I have a hard time believing. Its kinda like the claim that up to 100 million people were put in Gulags when the entire population of the USSR was about 150 million.

You're implying that there was a ratio of one rapist for every raped woman?

I don't know much about this topic. Comparison between American colonists in centuries past, American troops in WWII, and Soviet troops in Berlin is absurd because their situations were all different. Rape of Native Americans probably wasn't policed or counted during the colonial period. World War II was tough on Americans, but far worse on Soviet troops. Russians had been in battle a lot longer, suffered millions of casualties, and their home country had been torched by the Germans. They had lots of anger.

Being angry makes rape more legitimate? That's what it sounds like you're saying.

and here we have the first rape apologist, it was only a matter of time before those would show up.

Far to many. Case closed rape is rape, rape is forcing, drugging, etc to have sex with you regardless of if its war-time rape or peace-time rape its still rape and its wrong.

If the French and Dutch hadn't surrendered and conducted mass rape in Germany would you be excusing their behavior as well?

The rape of a single person is sufficiently demanding of merciless condemnation. The mass rape of German women reflected Communism's degeneration perfectly into the logic of national chauvinism - our nation against theirs. Only some fifteen years ago did the spirit of universalism still thrive in the Soviet Union, it is the greatest tragedy of the 20th century - Communism as a national expression. Rather than slaying the beast of capital on behalf of the German proletariat, this beast included the German proletariat itself. The Germans as a whole, not the class enemy or the degenerate ideologues, were to blame. The problem is not any cry for innocence, but the very logic itself.

Sharply in contrast to the Soviet Union's struggle for conquest shortly after the revolution, the Poles as a whole were not the enemy - the exploiters and oppressors in Poland were. The abdication of this mentality is the abdication and abandonment of the Communist universe.

Communists do not commit rape. Not even against the class enemy. The act of rape is to reinforce, and to make known the triumph sexual slavery of the old world. Communists must uphold the revolution through the blood and terror of a universe in which rape does not factor in and can not factor in by nature of the character, and expression of this blood and terror itself. The killing of many under a red banner is infinitely different than the massacres brought by the oppressors. We might wield the same sword and our thrust might be the same, but it is infinitely different. And only through the absence of things like rape is this difference made known, it is how we distinguish ourselves from the class enemy, the new world from the old - the guillotine and not the axe or rope.

My apologies if offense caused. No, anger doesn't legitimize it.

It makes it more likely to happen, though, a good reason not to have another World War.

Rape is a crime that must always be unacceptable, no matter who the victim is, no matter who the rapist is, no matter what.