Talk:Soviet war crimes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Manchuria

Hello, these sections seem to be here for more than a year, yet they contain no meaningful info. Maybe they should be deleted? 88.204.110.5 (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Absolutely no justification for reverting this edit, as such an act amounts to censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.72 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Alleged abuse of German civilians

There are attempts to substantiate allegations of rape and abuse of German civilians by citing yellowish nonsense by Natalya Gesse and the "raping every German female" claim. But those who actually participated in the offensives against Germany dispute such claims. Makhmut Gareev, President of the Academy of Military Sciences in Russia, said, "Personally, I participated in the liberation of Eastern Prussia. I speak frankly: I never heard about sexual abuse." The memoirs of war veteran Peter Kirichenko said, "It is not in the traditions of our people to take out reprisals against women, children, and elderly. The attitude of the Soviet soldiers to the German civilians was neutral. Nobody, at least from our regiment, committed persecutions." The allegations of extraordinary and massive mistreatment of German civilians are very much disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove well-sourced material when you add your viewpoint, also avoid attributions like you added (see WP:WEASEL). Some of the websites that you cite as sources don't claim what you say they do, for example militera.lib.ru just gives summaries of books. --Sander Säde 04:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest to add references to two additional sources of Russian atrocities committed against the German population at the end of WW2. One source is Anthony Beevor's "Berlin" (see Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/Berlin-Downfall-1945-Antony-Beevor/dp/0141032391/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1307524363&sr=8-6) and the account of one woman detailing the ongoing rape of German females. The account was published by an anonymous writer under the title of A Woman in Berlin: Diary 20 April 1945 to 22 June 1945 (Amazon link http://www.amazon.co.uk/Woman-Berlin-Diary-April-1945/dp/1844081125/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1307523580&sr=8-1), these accounts formed the bases of a film titled The Downfall Of Berlin - Anonyma. I am prepared to add this information to the article if no one pbjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In the known (talk • contribs) 09:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Sorry I forgot to sign the above Werner (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Prague Spring precedes Hungarian uprising

Wasn't the Prague Spring 10 years after the Hungarian uprising? Should this be the other way around? I'm going to check and fix this.

Also

What about other wars? There was wars like the Ogaden conflict or the various wars against Israel the Soviets were relatively directly involved in. Was there any war crimes then? Does anyone have any useful sources on this? Is a section on continuation relevant? If so does Chechnya warrant a mention? What about states other then Russia that were part of the Soviet Union that continued the same methods of repression via war crimes? Wasn't this common in Central Asia?--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Further High Profile Evidence of Russian Gang Rape of German Women

The wife of former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Hannelore Kohl, at age 12 has been gang raped by Russian Soldiers in May 1945. As a consequence, she sustained a serious life long back injury either by being pressed against a stone or throw out of a window. Hannelore Kohl committed suicide in 2001. She had been suffering long and serious illnesses that experts thought of as the consequence of childhood trauma. These details were published in the news journal Der Spiegel, Nr 12, 11 June 2011, pages 36 - 41. Further details of her life will be published in the German biography "The Woman at his Side: Life and Suffering of Hannelore Kohl" (Die Frau an seiner Seite: Leben und Leiden der Hannelore Kohl) by Heribert Schwan. 2011. München: Heyne Verlag. Werner 21:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In the known (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Werner 21:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Werner 22:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported claims

Edits like this [1] are totally unsupported and should not be made in any purported encyclopedia. The only thing found in the first source is that Soviet Russia carried out an invasion of Menshevik Goergia, without any mention of war crimes. The second source is a personal website that contains the same article. Moreover, later crimes that took place in peacetime cannot be war crimes as a matter of definition - this also means that the section on forcible repatriation of Eastern Europeans that was organized by the Soviet Union together with the Western Allies in 1946-1947 doesn't belong here. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, the whole article should be brought into accordance with the definition of war crime (i.e. the violation of laws and customs of war). Obviously, many chapters, despite they describe real misdeeds of the Soviet authorities, should be removed from the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hague convention

I removed the text that was not supported by the reliable secondary source. The RS available for me (Jacob Robinson. Transfer of Property in Enemy Occupied Territory. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Apr., 1945), pp. 216-230) says:

"Although the Soviet Union, which repudiated all treaties concluded by the Czarist regime, has not formally adhered to the Hague Convention, it is generally accepted that it considers itself bound by its provisions. Moreover, in his famous note on German atrocities of April 27, 1942, Molotov declared that the "Soviet Government . . . continues as hitherto to observe the obligations undertaken by the Soviet Union with regard to the regime for war prisoners according to the Hague Convention of 1907." "

I fixed the article accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Objectively and independently?

Why is there so much text without any proof? Or with reference to the same source. This sounds like slander and does not seem to be true. For example, in the section of Poland. Reliably known only Katyn, the rest need to be proved. 213.87.241.185 (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Mysterios

Polish artist Jerzy Bohdan Szumczyk installs scuplture in Gdansk to remember women raped by Russian soldiers

In October 2013, Polish artist Jerzy Bohdan Szumczyk errected a life size monument in Gdansk, Poland, in rememberance of the women raped by Russian soldiers. The monument depicts a pregnant women and a Russian soldier standing over her, grabbing her hair and putting a gun in her mouth. Authorities removed the sculpture a few hours later as the artise had no permission to put it up. The Russian ambassadoer was enraged and in total denial of the mass rape committed by Russian soldiers. Jerzy Bohdan Szumczyk received a lot of support in various online forums in several countries. English Source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/16/polish-artist-in-hot-water-over-soviet-rapist-sculpture/ and http://www.news.net/article/572837/Technology/ German source: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/skulptur-einer-vergewaltigung-in-polen-schockiert-russischen-botschafter-a-928457.html Werner 22:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In the known (talk • contribs) Werner 22:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Estonia and Lithuania sections

Why are political repressions listed in this article that is about war crimes? -YMB29 (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Further High Profile Evidence of Russian Gang Rape of German Women in 1945

The wife of former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Hannelore Kohl, has been gang raped at age 20 by Russian Soldiers in May 1945. As a consequence, she sustained a serious life long back injury either by being pressed against a stone or throw out of a window. Hannelore Kohl committed suicide in 2001. She had been suffering long and serious illnesses that experts thought of as the consequence of childhood trauma. These details were published in the news journal Der Spiegel, Nr 12, 11 June 2011, pages 36 - 41. Further details are published in the biography "The Woman at his Side: Life and Suffering of Hannelore Kohl" (Die Frau an seiner Seite: Leben und Leiden der Hannelore Kohl) by Heribert Schwan. 2011. München: Heyne Verlag. Werner 13:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In the known (talk • contribs) Werner 13:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

German POW in Russia

I read that many German prisoners of war died (mostly of starvattion) while in Russian custody, i.e. that only 6000 of initially 90000 captured during the battle of stalin grad came back alive. That is obviously mistreatment of pows. isnt that a war crime as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.51.203 (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the Soviets were themselves affected by a famine in that period - a famine largely due to the invasion - I would say not, unless reputable sources suggest otherwise. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, had enough food or medication been available for the Soviet population, the starvation of German POW would be a crime. However, in actuality, it was not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The incessant handwringing over the fate of the poor, innocent Germans (not!) at the hands of the evil, savage USSR (as well as the disingenuous disclaimers by the partisans of a supposedly peaceful, pastoral USSR) should really give way to a more balanced examination of all of the information on both sides, now that the Cold War is 22 years dead. Almost NONE of the articles in Wiki regarding the campaign waged by Nazi Germany and its allies on the USSR, or the counter-campaign by the USSR against Nazi Germany and its allies come anywhere near even -approaching- a neutral PoV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.27.241 (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Anybody who has good sources is welcome to contribute to this and other articles in Wikipedia. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

We have German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Senyavskaya

Sorry, but this is not only my opinion. She was caught with falsifying data. She should not be cited anywhere, especially if she criticizes others, which I think is such context counts as a BLP violation. My very best wishes (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That is just laughable. Solonin is not a real historian and it is a blog. -YMB29 (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Senyavskaya's credibility, see here[2]. -YMB29 (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The text was removed because a user was jumping to conclusions based on a blog entry. Criticism from a blog, especially about a living person, cannot be used (see WP:BLOGS). This has already been discussed on the other page (see link in my previous comment). -YMB29 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Regarding Senyavskaya's credibility, see here[3]. -YMB29 (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

With regard to your last revert here, I would like to notice: there is no consensus for making your changes whatsoever. Do not assume that the consensus is on your side simply because you made last comment. I do not think you really answered any concerns which were made by other contributors on this page. Note that none of them has any obligation to continue a fruitless discussion. It is enough that everyone expressed their disagreements with your edits and explained why on this talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought you retired?

May I remind you that you reverted the text without consensus based on what someone said in a blog. -YMB29 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not notice, but I am using this template as a sign that I am currently "offline". My very best wishes (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

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

Why should she be given only one sentence when she has an entire article devoted to the issue?

I removed one of the sentences mentioning Beevor, but I don't see why the others should be removed. -YMB29 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of undue weight, why do you think that Kohl's wife should be mentioned here? -YMB29 (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not how WP:DUE works. If Senyavskaya's claim that rapes were only a small component of overall Soviet War Crimes is true, then having lots of text about it runs counter to that proposition by making rapes the focus of this article. Rzheshevsky's view is given one sentence, why should Senyavskaya be given more? Kohl's wife is mentioned in Rape during the occupation of Germany, probably undue here. --Nug (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do you make Senyavskaya dependent on Rzheshevsky?

The rapes are already made a focus of the article by other sources. The text cited to her responds to those sources. -YMB29 (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

How is Senyavskaya more important than Rzheshevsky, that you have to give her more weight than Rzheshevsky? --Nug (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a popularity contest... Both are important, but Senyavskaya's criticism is more detailed. -YMB29 (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

However WP:UNDUE applies. That's policy. Senyavskaya is just repeating similar things to what Rzheshevsky has said. If people want to read Senyavskaya in more detail they can go to the source cited in the reference section. --Nug (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

She is not repeating the same thing he says. Even if she did, I don't see what WP:UNDUE has to do with this. -YMB29 (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Both are referring to Beevor, and both are claiming he is repeating Goebbel's propaganda. Claiming WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT with respect to WP:UNDUE isn't a valid argument. You have not provided any justification for attributing more weight to Senyavskaya than Rzheshevsky. --Nug (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The only thing they say that is the same is that the accusations originate from Nazi propaganda. -YMB29 (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't given a justification why Senyavskaya should be given more prominence over Rzheshevsky. --Nug (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You still did not explain why she should not. -YMB29 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've already pointed you to WP:UNDUE, the onus is on you to explain why WP:UNDUE doesn't apply in this case. --Nug (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you did not explain how it applies here. -YMB29 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE applies everywhere, it is policy. I agreed with your view that mention of Kohl's wife in this article was undue, so don't suddenly claim you don't understand what WP:UNDUE means. --Nug (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I know what it means, but how does it apply to Senyavskaya? -YMB29 (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You have given disproportionate coverage of Senyavskaya's views compared with other historians, see WP:BALASPS. --Nug (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That is because Senyavskaya published more on the subject than Rzheshevsky. And you are ok with Naimark getting his own paragraph? -YMB29 (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

That is because of your reverts without consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What reverts? I've been discussing it here on talk for the last couple of days. You seemed to have complained to an admin during that discussion, which indicates that you believe your arguments are weak and thus need admin intervention to help you get the upper hand. --Nug (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

To refresh your memory: [4][5]. And that is only in this article.

Also, don't get confused; I notified the admin about reverting in the other article. -YMB29 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the first edit your cite[6] was not a revert, there was no previous identical version to which that edit reverts to. It was a regular bold edit per WP:BRD. The second edit[7] was a revert, but then you followed up with your own revert[8] before we began discussion on talk. The fact you subsequently attempted to get admin intervention while we were in the middle of discussing the issue on talk indicates an apparent level of duplicity which has poisoned any good faith that may have existed. --Nug (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Again the admin intervention was for the other article. Bring it up here over and over is disruptive.

Maybe it would have been wise for you to make changes only after some discussion. I mean if you claim that you were acting in good faith...

Also, a partial revert is still a revert. -YMB29 (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Nug - see my comment here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Well this was expected... You could of at least tried not to sound just like Iryna Harpy in the other article[9]. -YMB29 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to make two points here.

1. The material about Hannelore Kohl (here) is completely unrelated to Russian historians. This may be "due" or not, but this should be discussed separately. There is no consensus whatsoever to exclude this material (which has been included previously by someone else).
2. There is no doubt (per vast majority of sources) that such crimes indeed had happened on significant scale. Therefore, opinions by historians, who in essence deny everything, belong to WP:FRINGE/insignificant minority view. For example, we do not use people involved in Holocaust denial as sources about Holocaust. By the same reason, we should not cite Soviet crimes deniers on this page, but only in pages about themselves. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comparison to holocaust denial is way off. There is no consensus for the mass rape claims; this is just your opinion.

The text about Kohl's wife was added by Nug recently, but he then agreed that it does not belong here, see above.

You should read the previous discussion carefully and not make changes without consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Gareev [10], "he had not even heard about sexual violence" [by the Soviet Army]". This has been explained. Now, speaking of Senyavskaya (the initial concern by Nug), this source is particularly terrible: she is trying to promote the ridiculous idea that Soviet soldiers were victimized by European women, because these women were so easy to rape (which undermined moral values of Soviet soldiers) and because these women transmitted venereal diseases [11]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Where did you get that? -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the article, «Все немки развратны. Они ничего не имеют против того, чтобы с ними спали» ... Немцы перед отступлением, а также сейчас, на занятой нами территории, стали на путь искусственного заражения сифилисом и триппером немецких женщин, с тем, чтобы создать крупные очаги для распространения венерических заболеваний среди военнослужащих Красной Армии», and so on, and so on. Such are sources you are using. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

So what is wrong with that? She did not write that herself, but is just quoting some primary sources. The quotes are part of a section devoted to primary sources. -YMB29 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, she is using Soviet-era primary sources to justify the following mutually exclusive ideas: (a) that rapes never happened; (b) it was OK to rape them because they deserved it, and (c) European women undermined moral of Soviet soldiers by giving up too easily and by transmitting them venereal diseases. That advocacy piece belongs to WP:FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is just your interpretation of it. None of the points you made are true. The documents are brought up to challenge the Western image of the aggressive and primitive Soviet soldier and show that Soviet views on intimate relations were more conservation than the ones in many European countries. -YMB29 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but direct quotation in Russian (see above) is very clear. She repeats statements like "all German women are whores" to justify her views that mass rapes were not at all committed (as stated in the beginning of her article) or that everything was consensual. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting what is written there. She does not say that about German women or that everything was consensual. I guess you see only what you want to... -YMB29 (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

How dare you claim that I misrepresented the source if she tells in the first phrase of her article that mass rapes by the Soviet Army is a myth that came from the Goebbels and ... Western propaganda? The whole chapter is entitled "According to the recipes by Goebbels" (Here is the quote: "Одним из самых распространенных антироссийских мифов на Западе сегодня является тема массовых изнасилований, якобы совершенных Красной Армией в 1945 г. в Европе. Свое начало он берет еще с конца войны – из геббельсовской пропаганды, а затем из публикаций бывших союзников по антигитлеровской коалиции). My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You should read carefully. I was not talking about this particular statement of yours. -YMB29 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest (per WP:FRINGE) not include any views by people who declare a majority view to be "Goebbels propaganda". And this is not only Senyavskaya, but also some other modern Russian historians, such as Makhmut Gareev. He said [12] "Beevor and his yes-men are banal plagiarists. The real author of the myth of "aggressive sexuality" of our soldiers is Goebbels. Beevor, however, outdid Goebbels… The next lampoon about the Soviet soldier-liberator... I personally participated in the liberation of East Prussia. And I am saying as on confession: I’ve never heard then about sexual violence.", and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, we should rely on scholarly articles, not on Russian nationalist polemics. --Nug (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

27 October 2015 expansion

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal/pl/2/1002/Otwarcie_wystawy_8222Zbrodnie_w_majestacie_prawa_1944821119568221_8211_Krakow_2_.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cdi.org/russia/Johnson/6225-9.cfm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Poland 1939–1941

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

Why Soviet Russia ?

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

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

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

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

I agree with the change. Kierzek (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, done. Thanks for the feedback. Lklundin (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite the link, the country was called Russia until 1922. Soviet Russia is the best description of the country from 1917-1922, although it was used pejoratively later. TFD (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, since it gives a whole new meaning to the (now) former start. Although all the crimes may very well have happened at the hands of armed forces, some of those crimes were done on the direct order from the highest place. It was f.ex. Stalin himself who ordered the Katyn Massacre (according the sources we quote). So whether or not we want to mention any initial names of the Soviet Union, I think the start should continue to clearly indicate that the responsibility for the crimes includes the country as a whole (and thereby the person at the top, e.g. Stalin). Lklundin (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a historian. This section brings up the crucial point I didn't like. Why all in one article? There's a lot of substance to cover in many of these events listed. I absolutely hate soviet apologism, but aggregating seems like a misguided attempt at casting a negative light on soviet history as a whole. Instead, there really should be separate articles for many of these events, with the "causal" factor carefully attributed. Some should be seen in a context of Russian/imperial aggression as a whole; Russian war crimes in the 1880s-1900s, in Manchuria, were equally repulsive as many of those listed. Others should be specifically attributed to Stalinist fervor, and there are quite a number of these in the 1920s and 1930s. The post-1960s ones are also the result of a typical dictator, but much less systematic. There's so much material here (unfortunately, Russia has probably committed more war crimes in the last 150 years than any other nation) that it really diminishes the importance of each event if you collect them all in an article without highlighting the causal mechanisms. 73.114.34.87 (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This entire article is offensive red baiting.

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

Don`t forget - Wiki is encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.72.189 (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That's for World War II, where we can observe some cohension/relationship between the events.

This article is too disorganized. I'm not worried about the accusations of Russiaphobia or "red baiting" - these are shocking historical realities that have been censored, sometimes by pro-Soviet western academics/media, for decades. They deserve to be carefully recorded in a publicly accessible encyclopedia. What I don't agree is aggregating these atrocities in one place - and attributing it to the Red Army generally. Many of these war crimes are carried out under civilian orders or justifications, not military justifications. NKVD's executions aren't a war-related topic, even if some fraction of them occurred in wartime. They should be in separate pages, or at the very least, more of them should have their own main articles outside of this article.73.114.34.87 (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Spain civil war too

NKVD was main part in torture chambers. Like Barcelona, plagued with this so called "chekas", some even including abstract paint disorder(!) or wet dream. Just an idea to honor these lives destroyed in this ***** horror. https://books.google.es/books/about/Checas_de_Madrid_y_Barcelona.html?id=ciRKAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y and many more. Thanks --81.39.50.217 (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Soviet war crimes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.studiajudaica.pl/sj14kapi.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822165939/http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/review/cwtable.htm to https://fas.org/bwc/papers/review/cwtable.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827075510/http://www.postimees.ee/160807/esileht/arvamus/277366.php to http://www.postimees.ee/160807/esileht/arvamus/277366.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wyborcza.pl/1%2C75515%2C8157475%2CMaly_Katyn__65_lat_od_oblawy_augustowskiej.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/specjal_041002/specjal_a_6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007025551/http://www.ihuw.pl/biogramy/index.php?UID=87 to http://www.ihuw.pl/biogramy/index.php?UID=87
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www3.uj.edu.pl/alma/alma/64/01/02.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.net/article/572837/Technology/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525082008/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Komm Frau

It would be useful for the article, in describing the statue by Jerzy Bohdan Szumczyk, to explain where the work is now. Deipnosophista (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism

"Jews, left-wingers and liberals generally downplay stories of Soviet crimes." - from section 4.8 titled "Hungary"

Am I the only one who reads this as patently anti-semitic? Lumping "Jews" in as unilaterally pro-Marxist is a pretty typical canard, and an offensive one, as it's straight out of Nazi propaganda. Can someone explain to me why this should be tolerated here, or else, delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.210.139 (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The controversial sentence was removed from the article. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

request to page protection

i ask to someone protect this page, because of the mass edit war between an IP user and 2 other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTimesARENTchanginglol (talk • contribs) 14:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

deportations inside USSR:

the deportation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis, Deportation of Koreans, Deporation of Cossacks and the Deportation of Greeks should be added, because they we're also war crimes, so i ask to someone revert the page to the version as of 02:43, 26 July 2020, because its more accurate than now (and also it was before the edit-war happened), who there agrees? TheTimesARENTchanginglol (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Additions relate to the Soviet Union's domestic policies and are not described as "war crimes" in the cited sources (per previous editor's edit summary).   // Timothy :: talk  16:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

how is literally getting people out of their houses, sending them to work camps, torturing them, raping and even KILLING them is not an war crime?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTimesARENTchanginglol (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Because 1) The sources you cite don't support your assertions and Wikipedia reports what sources say, not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. 2) All but one of the items you listed didn't occur in the context of a Soviet war, they were a part of Soviet domestic policy. 3) Some of the things you listed the Soviet Union was not a part of. Finally, many of your citations are incomplete (no page numbers). No one is claiming the items you listed are not crimes, but that they were not Soviet War Crimes.   // Timothy :: talk  17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

USSR was frequently involving in external expansion like Ukraine, Baltics and Poland in 1918-1920, Caucasus through 1920's or Afghanistan in 1979. In many cases what it claimed to be USSR was an ephemeral "people's republics" created purely as a forefront for annexation, which leaves quite a lot of gray areas in what was "war" and what was "internal policy". I agree 30's and 40's deportations were pretty much done within well-established Soviet, so probably they should be just linked in See Also section or more broadly Red Terror and other high-level articles? Cloud200 (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that deportation of people in legitimate Soviet republics wasn't a war crime but instead a case of Soviet repressions. However deporting natives of occupied countries is a war crime, and nobody apart from Nazi Germany and a handful of other states recognised the legitimacy of the incorporation of the formerly independent Baltic states into the Soviet Union. The 1949 deportations in the Baltic states were intended to break the back of the insurgency against the Soviet occupation that lasted well into the 1950s. The majority of deportees were women and children related to members and supporters of these insurgents known as the Forest Brothers. --Nug (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

victims within the soviet union

-apparently, when the ip user added it, he was taling about the Red terror that happened during and after the russian civil war, but, isnt russian civil war counted as an war?.

-and, the Decossackization happened mostly during the russian civil war, yes, part of it was after the russian civil war, but still, it happened during a war, and they killed the cossacks (which we're the native people living there).

-about the deportation of greeks, the same thing, most happened during a war, and it involved getting civilians which we're already living there (they we're not natives, but they we're living there for centuries if not even milleniums), and also, yes, some of it did happen when USSR was not at war (directly) anymore, but the biggest parts we're during a war and involved getting natives out of their lands and sending them to work camps to work until death.

-the deportation of armenians and azerbaijanis the same, part of it occured during times of peace, but the big parts of it happened during a internal war between 2 soviet republics, on which both deported the Native civilians from the other republic to work camps.

187.39.132.210 (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

red terror

the part victims within the soviet union that i added is about the Russian civil war, because it is counted as an war and the crimes commited fit in War crimes definition, so i ask it to be added. PastaEditor2 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on May 22, 2021: NKVD linked twice

NKVD is linked twice in the same sentence in the lead section. Only one link is needed. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC) 92.24.246.11 (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Pahunkat (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Wow, you move fast! Thanks. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem - I happened to see this page on my watchlist :-) Pahunkat (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

WWII section reference change request

The opening of the WWII section references The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau. This doesn't seem like a reliable source, I request that a better source is used. JCTullos (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 18:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Soviet war crimes → Soviet war crimes and crimes against humanity – This page also covers crimes against humanity, not just war crimes. I moved this page to "Soviet crimes against humanity" and it was reverted. I am proposing to move the page because of the aforementioned reason and want to know what other Wikipedians think about it. Fluffy89502 (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 14:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – this is a parallel move request, very similar to the proposal to change Russian war crimes → Russian war crimes and crimes against humanity, which can be found at this RM discussion. Please see the discussion there, for insight into some of the issues which may be relevant here as well. Mathglot (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Soviet crimes against humanity is a redirect to this article. Given the current article, where the primary focus is WW2, this is quite an adequate solution. The lead defines the scope of the article and is quite sufficient. There is however scope to expand "crimes against humanity" not under the mantle of war as a separate article and including the Great Purge perhaps. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – the RM at Talk:Russian war crimes linked above has been closed as not moved, so WP:CONSISTENT counsels in favor of leaving this article where it is as well. It might be appropriate to split off a separate article about Soviet crimes against humanity, as suggested above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.