Stalin's army of rapists: The brutal war crime that Russia and Germany tried to ignore.

Relations between Russia and Germany have not been good since Vladimir Putin's nationalist sabre-rattling this summer, but they are about to get a whole lot worse.

A new film about to be released in Germany will force both countries to re-examine part of their recent history that each would much prefer to forget. Yet it is right that the ghastly truth should finally be acknowledged.

The movie, A Woman In Berlin, is based on the diary of the German journalist Marta Hillers and depicts the horror of the Red Army's capture of the capital of the Third Reich in April and May 1945.

Marta was one of two million German women who were raped by soldiers of the Red Army - in her case, as in so many others, several times over.

It was a feature of Russia's 'liberation' and occupation of eastern Germany at the end of World War II that is familiar enough to historians, but which neither country cares to acknowledge took place on anything like the scale it did.

"Mobilization in World War I in 1914, under the laws and customs of warfare then observed (not to mention the desire to avoid compromising national security), general mobilization of one nation's military forces was invariably considered an act of war by that country's likely enemies. As the proverb claims, no army has ever mobilized without going to war."

I went back to verify the details on this particular question.

In fact, not only was Russia's PARTIAL MOBILIZATION against AUSTRIA recognized as NON-THREATENING by the Germans, it was OFFICIALLY PRE-APPROVED by the German Foreign Minister Jagow, on July 27 (reference: Fromkin page 224).

To understand what happened next, we must first know that the Germans only had ONE real set of war plans, the so-called Schlieffen Plan. That plan required Germany to FIRST invade through NEUTRAL Belgium, defeat France and THEN turn it's armies against Russia.

But German leaders, like Army chief Moltke also understood: before they could launch into NEUTRAL Belgium, they must first convince the world, and especially the German population (!), that everything was RUSSIA'S FAULT.

So, after Russia began its pre-approved partial mobilization against Austria, the German Kaiser turned on the Russian Czar, demanding he immediately de-mobilize, and when the Czar refused, Germany instantly declared war.

Then, as the Schlieffen Plan required, Germany launched it's war against RUSSIA by invading NEUTRAL BELGIUM!

from KampfgruppeZ:
"France urged Russia to mobilize for fear of an immediate German attack."

I have looked now, and found no actual historical evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- suggesting that France urged Russia on prior to Germany's declaration of war on August 1.

In fact, just the opposite. Here are Fromkin's descriptions:

July 28, 1914, Paris: "France knew nothing of the war crisis, the news of which everyone spoke was that Mme Caillaux had been acquitted [of murder]!..."

July 30: "France's Ambassador Paleologue in St. Petersburg [Russia] has been blamed for years by historians -- wrongly, we now believe -- for having failed during the night of July 29-30 to notify his government that Russia was mobilizing. Research by Jean Stengers has shown that the Russians -- distrusting Paleologue -- did not tell him. When France DID learn of the impending move, it was too late to stop the Russians...

Still July 30: "...Paris: Back from their long voyage, and not yet caught up on all the news of what had happened during their absence, France's leaders attempted to apply the brakes to fast-moving events. With President Poincare's approval, Prime Minister Viviani cabled to the Russian government cautionary advice:

"'in the precautionary measures and defensive measures to which Russia believes herself obliged to resort, she should not immediately proceed to any measure which might offer Germany a pretext for a total or partial mobilization of her forces.'

"France itself pulled back its armed forces six miles from the Franco-German frontier."

In fact, just the opposite. Here are Fromkin's descriptions:

I'll see your Fromkin and raise you an OBAMA and BIDEN! As citizens of a country that willingly votes for a MARXIST COMMUNIST by a margin over 52%, you don't know or have learned a thing about history, -- zero, zip, nada --

I fact both Wilson and Roosevelt were socialists. So really, OBAMA is just the natural progression.

The RED chickens have really come home to roost and you'll never get rid of them now!

I'll give you another history lesson, remember before Castro took over Cuba, he spoke of democracy for his country. Then, the moment after he took control, he proclaimed that he was really a COMMUNIST! Fooled everyone! With Obama He's been tell you folks that He's a COMMIE for almost two years and STILL you voted him in......HAAAAAaaaaa! Now he, Pelosi, Reed, Schummer, etc. all have four years to change your constitution so that COMMRAD OBAMA IS PRESIDENT FOR LIFE!

WHATCHA GUNNA DO BOUT IT.....SERFS?

"I'll see your Fromkin and raise you an OBAMA and BIDEN!"

I will take your lunatic rant as a concession speech -- you concede my points: that Germany started the First World War, and suffered relatively minor punishments as a result.

And, this relates directly to the beating Germany took in the Second World War -- which takes us back to the subjecty of PotatoHeadMick's original post.

As for Obmania -- a completely different subject! -- we'll see. You may remember that he ran in the GENERAL election as a self-proclaimed tax-cutting, budget cutting and balancing, pro-energy, pro-gun, pro-national defense CONSERVATIVE!

But here's my bottom line: I have less direct interest in what's going to happen politically tomorrow (which I don't control), than in setting the FACTS STRAIGHT about what happened years ago. There at least, I can add in my two cents worth...

I will take your lunatic rant as a concession speech -- you concede my points: that Germany started the First World War, and suffered relatively minor punishments as a result.

I concede nothing. Here I'll make it plain, YOU are full of BOVINE Barack Soetoro. YOUR new leader (leader....mmmmmffftttt!!) is a doofuss COMMIE. So your interpretation of history means nothing because you people have learned NOTHING FROM HISTORY!

than in setting the FACTS STRAIGHT about what happened years ago.

The victors wrote WWI history and you call those facts....pppffftttt!

There at least, I can add in my two cents worth...

HA, YOU over rate your input.

Germany started the First World War

I saved this for last because all you HISTORY GENUSES conveniently completely ignore the basic fact that the heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated by a Serb. No country worth it's salt would not be outraged by that. Austria was well within it's rights to do what ever. Since Germany and Austria were allies, German support was natural.

your lunatic rant

Save your insults, I'd have to see you as an equal/superior to be offended an contempt is what I feel.....ALL YOUR CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST!

"all you HISTORY GENUSES conveniently completely ignore the basic fact that the heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated by a Serb. No country worth it's salt would not be outraged by that. Austria was well within it's rights to do what ever. Since Germany and Austria were allies, German support was natural."

First, no doubt, you don't understand the rules here -- if you change the subject from an reasoned discussion to a lunatic rant, then YOU LOSE THE ARGUMENT!

Second, I have a half a dozen books here on the subject. So trust me on this: you cannot say anything true about it, which I don't already know or at least can't soon verify. And, contrary to what you now claim, I DID MENTION the Archduke's assassination -- check out post 76.

The Archduke's assassination TRIGGERED Austria to invade Serbia, but it did not CAUSE Germany to invade NEUTRAL BELGIUM or FRANCE.

What caused those invasions was the German war plan -- the so-called Schlieffen Plan. It was the ONLY real plan Germany had for war.

The Kaiser launched his Schlieffen Plan in response to Russia's PARTIAL MOBILIZATION against Austria -- a mobilization which the German Foreign Minister Jagow had PRE-APPROVED, and which the Czar had several times assured the Kaiser was NO THREAT TO GERMANY.

But one key to understanding is this: the historical record shows that Austria did not ON ITS OWN declare war on Serbia. It had to be PUSHED and SHOVED into that by German leaders, including the Kaiser, his army chief Moltke, and the Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg.

So, the WHOLE THING was a German SHOW from Day One -- the June 28, 1914 assassination of Austria's Archduke Ferdinand.

Finally, I've said before: this whole sequence of events is quite complex, with many moving parts, and anyone can cherry-pick a few historical facts to make his argument.

But if you take time to study the WHOLE PICTURE, it's absolutely clear -- that Germany was Europe's most powerful country, and launched the aggressions to which all other powers in Europe necessarily responded.

That's why the Great War was solely Germany's fault, and Germany's punishment after the war was fair, just and relatively minor -- compared to the suffering Germany caused!

.....and Germany's punishment after the war was fair, just and relatively minor -- compared to the suffering Germany caused!

Based upon my readings of the Great War and its aftermath, I agree with your response leading up to the statement above. I don't necessarily disagree with that statement, but am interested in your thoughts on why Germany's punishment was "fair, just and relatively minor". One school of thought that I have read over and over on the war's aftermath is that the crushing reparations imposed on Germany, along with inflation, and depression led to Hitler and all that evil. If the German people had the opportunity to rebuild their country and nurture and refine the Weimar Republic perhaps all that followed might not have been unleashed. I think the Cold War battle with the Soviet Union was inevitable regardless of the real circumstances of the '30s and '40s.

"...why Germany's punishment was "fair, just and relatively minor". One school of thought that I have read over and over on the war's aftermath is that the crushing reparations imposed on Germany, along with inflation, and depression led to Hitler and all that evil... "

Yes, of course you are right.

After the Great War, Germans convinced themselves: they were not really defeated militarily -- after all, no army invaded and destroyed their territory!

And since they were NOT defeated, then the peace terms imposed at Versailles in 1919 were unfair, unjust and way too harsh!

Germans eventually decided the REAL cause of their "defeat" was a "stab in the back" by German politicians, especially Jews. Enter Adolf Hitler, stage left.

I'm saying: ALL OF THAT talk, and we seen it ALL repeated here on this thread, is pure 100% total political BUNK! It's a big big big lie!

The real truth is that the German Empire, having first started the Great War for purposes of conquest and territory, WERE finally thoroughly defeated militarily.

And my point here is: that mean the COMPARISON of what makes a "just peace" imposed on Germany, is NOT some idealized version of, say Wilson's 14 points, but rather should be peace terms which GERMANY ITSELF imposed on, for example, Russia at Brest-Litovsk in 1918.

So I have pointed out two things:
First, the Versailles Peace Treaty was MUCH kinder to Germany than Germany was to Russia at Brest-Litovsk. So, what's good for the goose... right? Or, compare the reparations Germany actually paid with those Germany imposed on little NEUTRAL BELGIUM in 1914! By this compairson, there was NOTHING "unjust" about Versailles.

Second, the German Empire suffered the LEAST severe consequences for defeat, compared to it's allies --
the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, which was completely destroyed,
and the Ottoman Empire, which was stripped of everything outside Turkey.

Bottom line: I'm saying, set aside German propaganda, and look at the reality. The REAL problem with World War One was that Germany did not suffer enough for their own evil deeds.

And, of course, that problem was FULLY corrected in the Second World War.

"If the German people had the opportunity to rebuild their country and nurture and refine the Weimar Republic perhaps all that followed might not have been unleashed."

Could Hitler's rise to power have been prevented by the western allies?

Possibly yes, but that would have required a level of foresight, statesmanship and political skills well beyond the average of that time, or of any time!

I've mentioned before, the sequence of events leading to war in 1914 is complex to the point of bewildering -- and anyone can cherry-pick a few facts from it to make their arguments.

Well, the same is true to the nth power about the rise of Hitler! But I would argue, based on the character of Germans at the time, that regardless of how nicey-nice the western allies tried to be, Germany was doomed, doomed to make a second go at it sooner or later.

Pure speculation, of course.

"I think the Cold War battle with the Soviet Union was inevitable regardless of the real circumstances of the '30s and '40s."

It's important to remember that Franklin Roosevelt had no fear of Stalin's Soviet Union. And, thanks to typical New York Times propaganda, many Americans harbored a highly idealized vision of Russian Communism. One result, for example, was that while FDR vigorously hunted down Nazi agents in America, he never could find even one Communist agent in his own government!

This was definitely not true of many in Europe. Even with the rise of Hitler, many Europeans were conflicted as to which was the greater threat: Nazi Germany or Communist Russia? That conflict, I think, underlies some of Britain & France's effort to appease Hitler -- they wanted a strong force opposing Communism.

Americans never even began to come around to this viewpoint until after Roosevelt's death, and the end of the war. Truman was much clearer-eyed about Stalin, but even so, it took the US a long time to realize that Stalin could be as great a threat as Hitler ever was.

If Hitler had been more diplomatically skilled, and less maniacal, it's even possible he might have enlisted Western European support for a war on Soviet Russia.

Or, in other words, if Hitler had not been Hitler....

Wow! Thanks for your well thought out and presented perspectives.

LOL--....while FDR vigorously hunted down Nazi agents in America, he never could find even one Communist agent in his own government! Yes indeed, couldn't locate a single one or twenty.

Your perspectives on Brest-Litovsk and the Belgian reparations put the German reparations into context. Thanks for your three thoughtful and detailed replies/perspectives.

These types of exchanges are the things I love most about FR. I have added the Fromkin book to my list of Christmas wishes. Might I suggest to you, "Versailles 1919" which came out a couple of years ago written by a woman author. I'm sorry I can't be more specific, the book is at my other home 225 miles from Rush Lake.

"Might I suggest to you, "Versailles 1919" which came out a couple of years ago written by a woman author."

Yes, ideed! ;-)

Margaret MacMillan c2003, "Paris 1919"

An excellent book, and I don't disagree with anything she says... -- except possibly any suggestion that if, somehow, Western Allies had been more nicey-nice to the Germans, that MIGHT have prevented a Second World War.

I suspect: regardless of what the allies did in Versailles, Germans were not going to give up their dream of European conquest without another major war, sooner or later.

Along those same lines, I also suggest another Fromkin book:

David Fromkin c1989 "A Peace to End All Peace"

This one reviews that other, even longer lasting consequence of Versailles in 1919: origins of the modern Middle East conflicts.

"German propaganda is child's play compared to what the red communist since Lenin and Marx have espoused. Wonder when they are going to get theirs?? "

Here's what you need to understand:

The Russian Bolshevic Communists were creatures of the World War One German military!

In 1917, the Germans plucked Lenin out of exile in Switzerland, transported him across Germany in a "sealed car," -- like a bacillus -- with trunk loads full of money, to infect Russia's democratic revolution, and take Russia out of the war.

It was a brilliant strategy, exercised on a nearly helpless Russian government, and for almost no cost to Germany in 1917, eliminated one whole front the Germans had to fight.

And, it almost, almost, almost won Germany the First World War.

Twenty-four years later (1941), the Germans went back to collect their principle and dividends from now Stalin's Soviet Union -- and IF HITLER HAD NOT BEEN A RAVING LUNATIC, THEY COULD HAVE HAD EVERYTHING THEY WANTED!

More than once, in 1941 and beyond, Stalin offered to stop the war and make peace with Hitler, but the LUNATIC HITLER refused. He wanted EVERYTHING, and he ended up with NOTHING!

The estimates of Soviet dead in the Second World War are over 20 million. So I'd say the Soviets suffered plenty.

Do you think NOT ENOUGH died?

Here's what you need to understand: The Russian Bolshevic Communists were creatures of the World War One German military! In 1917, the Germans plucked Lenin out of exile in Switzerland, transported him across Germany in a "sealed car," -- like a bacillus -- with trunk loads full of money, to infect Russia's democratic revolution, and take Russia out of the war.

Would you please provide your source (evidence) for such a claim? Lenin is still responsible for his deeds? Why have so many ignored what Lenin and Marx penned and plotted? They have not yet been held to account for what they put into motion.

It was a brilliant strategy, exercised on a nearly helpless Russian government, and for almost no cost to Germany in 1917, eliminated one whole front the Germans had to fight.

Brilliant??? NO. I have no reason to believe such a claim, I will need something more than someone posting such a claim.

And, it almost, almost, almost won Germany the First World War. Twenty-four years later (1941), the Germans went back to collect their principle and dividends from now Stalin's Soviet Union -- and IF HITLER HAD NOT BEEN A RAVING LUNATIC, THEY COULD HAVE HAD EVERYTHING THEY WANTED!

Hitler was an EVIL lunatic, but he was not German.

More than once, in 1941 and beyond, Stalin offered to stop the war and make peace with Hitler, but the LUNATIC HITLER refused. He wanted EVERYTHING, and he ended up with NOTHING!

Oh yes good guy Stalin, do you mean the Stalin that agreed at the end of the war to leave his half of North Korea? Then he boycotted the UN and signed a deal in Beijing to send around 120,000 RED Chinese down upon US and those there with US at the Chosin Reservoir. All the while Stalin supplied air support as our few 12,000 + fought their way out.

The estimates of Soviet dead in the Second World War are over 20 million. So I'd say the Soviets suffered plenty. Do you think NOT ENOUGH died?

Those Soviets themselves slaughtered closer to 100 million people under their godless bloody system. No I am not attempting to make Hitler less evil, but I will not continue to ignore the bloodier powers.

"Would you please provide your source (evidence) for such a claim? "

Do you know nothing about the history of the Russian Revolution of 1917? These are not facts in dispute. How do you suppose Lenin got to Russia? Where do you think he got his money?

Vladimir Lenin

I'm saying, the German military sent Lenin to Russia for the purpose of taking Russia out of the war. In other words: Lenin was a German agent! And he did exactly what he was sent to do -- the result was the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which cost the Russian Empire most of its territory west of Russia.

If that was not "brilliant," then there's no such a thing as "brilliant," I'd say.

And this was exactly the territory that Stalin was willing to give back to Hitler in the fall of 1941. But Hitler wouldn't take a deal! By then, he wanted much more. And by then, Stalin was beginning to gain powerful new allies -- Britain and eventually the US.

So Hitler lost his opportunity to collect the interest and dividends on the investment Germany made in 1917, in Russian Communism.

As for Lenin's & Stalin's moral responsibility for the mass deaths and destruction THEY brought -- this is not in dispute. And no one knows the exact numbers -- 100 million seems a bit high -- but it was certainly tens of millions.

Indeed, I think it's entirely fair to say that there was no crime which Hitler committed, which Stalin had not already committed many times over, except for one: there are no reports of mass murder by gas chambers in the Soviet Union.

Do you disagree?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.