no the two moons if fake!!
Eastern Time:
Partial Eclipse Begins:04:51 am
Total Eclipse Begins:05:52 am
Mid-Eclipse:06:37 am
Total Eclipse Ends:07:22 am
Partial Eclipse Ends:08:24 am
Central Time:
Partial Eclipse Begins:03:51 am
Total Eclipse Begins:04:52 am
Mid-Eclipse:05:37 am
Total Eclipse Ends:06:22 am
Partial Eclipse Ends:07:24 am
Mountain Time:
Partial Eclipse Begins:02:51 am
Total Eclipse Begins:03:52 am
Mid-Eclipse:04:37 am
Total Eclipse Ends:05:22 am
Partial Eclipse Ends:06:24 am
Pacific Time:
Partial Eclipse Begins:01:51 am
Total Eclipse Begins:02:52 am
Mid-Eclipse:03:37 am
Total Eclipse Ends:04:22 am
Partial Eclipse Ends:05:24 am
Alaska Time:
Partial Eclipse Begins:12:51 am
Total Eclipse Begins:01:52 am
Mid-Eclipse:02:37 am
Total Eclipse Ends:03:22 am
Partial Eclipse Ends:04:24 am
Hawaiian Time:
Partial Eclipse Begins:10:51 pm
Total Eclipse Begins:01:52 am
Mid-Eclipse:02:37 am
Total Eclipse Ends:01:22 am
Partial Eclipse Ends:02:24 am
Friday, February 12, 2010
Is it true the entire middle east was just voted ';last remaining barbaric hotspot';?
Of course Israel does not apply to this recent classification , since israel is a technologically advanced and democratic state.Is it true the entire middle east was just voted ';last remaining barbaric hotspot';?
';barbaric hotspot'; - are you sure it's not the title of a porn movie? utl your reference.Is it true the entire middle east was just voted ';last remaining barbaric hotspot';?
hot-spot yes, barbaric maybe, whats remaining there is a question.
No that would be my neighborhood.
IF IT WASN'T IT SHOULD BE.
Who voted?
I haven't seen that. I'm sure there are other barbaric hotspots. Wouldn't want those barbarians feeling TOO special, do we?
';barbaric hotspot'; - are you sure it's not the title of a porn movie? utl your reference.Is it true the entire middle east was just voted ';last remaining barbaric hotspot';?
hot-spot yes, barbaric maybe, whats remaining there is a question.
No that would be my neighborhood.
IF IT WASN'T IT SHOULD BE.
Who voted?
I haven't seen that. I'm sure there are other barbaric hotspots. Wouldn't want those barbarians feeling TOO special, do we?
Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you read the paper you are misinformed.
You need to look at several different sources and you might get an idea about the true story, but not always.
Nothing is 100% true, it can not be because you always have the bias of the reporter.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
no. In fact, most newspapers and channels are biased against Israel. The real story is that Hamas has been launching over missiles for several years, but recently, it just got worse. Hamas has been launching over 100 missiles a day, killing civilians. On the other hand, Israel is just protecting its country. Israel warns Hamas 30 minutes before because they hate killing civilians. Hamas then literately drags women and children civilians to the building in which it is being bombed and use them as a human shield. Unfortunately, the media isn't really showing this side of the war. Watch Fox News to get a better update on the war.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
The overwhelming majority is filled with complete crap. Many tend to cling to the one that they agree with the most. Some swear by Fox News while others will cling to CNN or the New York Times saying it's the most accurate. Really, those news sources are just telling them what they like to hear.
Remember that the overall objective in the news is to sell stories. A good number (well.. most) of reporters over there will base stories off of hearsay without being able to substantiate them. Some will go out of their way to get everything right, though those gems are far less common (They're easy to pick out by having good stories with absolutely no negative or positive spin).
My brother once told me of a case in Iraq that he looked into. A reporter was looking for some kind of information on a shooting. He was going to write a story about how coalition troops shot a nine year-old girl in the head while on patrol in Iraq. Looking deeper into the story (it only too him a few hours to find out what actually happened), he found that what had actually happened was that some Iraqi man got shot in the leg by an insurgent (they think it may have been someone the guy knew). To that reporter and through a giant game of telephone, that somehow translated into a little girl getting shot in the head. Yea. No bias there...
I doubt most would believe it, but the military's news is actually extremely accurate. Heh, unfortunately that also makes it very dry and boring. There have been cases of high ranking officers losing their commissions for spreading false stories. Most don't want to hear it though. I'd imagine because of the case of ';ZOMFG T3H EVIL GOVRNMT CONTRLZ UR MINDZ THINK FOR URSLF!!!11!!1!'; When you have large groups of people who band together and think like this (as well as when they all think alike), who are the ones thinking for themselves?
The more accurate, balanced, and unbiased news sources are from Reuters and the Washington Post.
You won't see this
http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Demonstr鈥?/a>
Each news channel or web site doesn't tell the whole story or shortens it to save time, leaving out some important details. Choose a reliable news website, like CNN, and read the articles over it, whole. Also news over it from different countries.
No not any newspaper or channel. You have to read news from different countries as well as the US and form your own OPINION on what is going on. Not even intelligence agencies KNOW whats going on a lot of the time.
There is no way to know whether it is 100% true.
I do find that watching BBC News covers some topics about the war that our news stations don't.
The stories your hear in the news are always going to be distorted.
everything you hear on tv especially coming form them, has been fixed to make us look bad.
Who knows? This is what we like to call 'Yellow Journalism'.
only if your a liberal
noooo
never 100% true 50 % true ok xx
You need to look at several different sources and you might get an idea about the true story, but not always.
Nothing is 100% true, it can not be because you always have the bias of the reporter.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
no. In fact, most newspapers and channels are biased against Israel. The real story is that Hamas has been launching over missiles for several years, but recently, it just got worse. Hamas has been launching over 100 missiles a day, killing civilians. On the other hand, Israel is just protecting its country. Israel warns Hamas 30 minutes before because they hate killing civilians. Hamas then literately drags women and children civilians to the building in which it is being bombed and use them as a human shield. Unfortunately, the media isn't really showing this side of the war. Watch Fox News to get a better update on the war.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
The overwhelming majority is filled with complete crap. Many tend to cling to the one that they agree with the most. Some swear by Fox News while others will cling to CNN or the New York Times saying it's the most accurate. Really, those news sources are just telling them what they like to hear.
Remember that the overall objective in the news is to sell stories. A good number (well.. most) of reporters over there will base stories off of hearsay without being able to substantiate them. Some will go out of their way to get everything right, though those gems are far less common (They're easy to pick out by having good stories with absolutely no negative or positive spin).
My brother once told me of a case in Iraq that he looked into. A reporter was looking for some kind of information on a shooting. He was going to write a story about how coalition troops shot a nine year-old girl in the head while on patrol in Iraq. Looking deeper into the story (it only too him a few hours to find out what actually happened), he found that what had actually happened was that some Iraqi man got shot in the leg by an insurgent (they think it may have been someone the guy knew). To that reporter and through a giant game of telephone, that somehow translated into a little girl getting shot in the head. Yea. No bias there...
I doubt most would believe it, but the military's news is actually extremely accurate. Heh, unfortunately that also makes it very dry and boring. There have been cases of high ranking officers losing their commissions for spreading false stories. Most don't want to hear it though. I'd imagine because of the case of ';ZOMFG T3H EVIL GOVRNMT CONTRLZ UR MINDZ THINK FOR URSLF!!!11!!1!'; When you have large groups of people who band together and think like this (as well as when they all think alike), who are the ones thinking for themselves?
The more accurate, balanced, and unbiased news sources are from Reuters and the Washington Post.
You won't see this
http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Demonstr鈥?/a>
Each news channel or web site doesn't tell the whole story or shortens it to save time, leaving out some important details. Choose a reliable news website, like CNN, and read the articles over it, whole. Also news over it from different countries.
No not any newspaper or channel. You have to read news from different countries as well as the US and form your own OPINION on what is going on. Not even intelligence agencies KNOW whats going on a lot of the time.
There is no way to know whether it is 100% true.
I do find that watching BBC News covers some topics about the war that our news stations don't.
The stories your hear in the news are always going to be distorted.
everything you hear on tv especially coming form them, has been fixed to make us look bad.
Who knows? This is what we like to call 'Yellow Journalism'.
only if your a liberal
noooo
never 100% true 50 % true ok xx
Who knows their East Asian History? Will you answer these true/false questions?
1. The earliest Korean account of the original myth of the Koreans records a legend about a Chinese exile, Qizi from the Shang dynasty, who founded a state in Korea.
2. The Chinese-styled civil service examination system adopted in Silla provided opportunities to people from lower-ranking class who wanted to improve their social or political status.
3. The Yi dynasty defeated the Mongols who had invaded and colonized part of the Koryo regime in the 14th century, and unified and ruled Korea from then to 1910.
4. During the Edo era, Japanese commoners had no access to receive any kabuki training because the founder of kabuki was a nobleman who created this form of performance for the entertainment of the royal clan.Who knows their East Asian History? Will you answer these true/false questions?
im failin history so idk
2. The Chinese-styled civil service examination system adopted in Silla provided opportunities to people from lower-ranking class who wanted to improve their social or political status.
3. The Yi dynasty defeated the Mongols who had invaded and colonized part of the Koryo regime in the 14th century, and unified and ruled Korea from then to 1910.
4. During the Edo era, Japanese commoners had no access to receive any kabuki training because the founder of kabuki was a nobleman who created this form of performance for the entertainment of the royal clan.Who knows their East Asian History? Will you answer these true/false questions?
im failin history so idk
Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you read the paper you are misinformed.
You need to look at several different sources and you might get an idea about the true story, but not always.
Nothing is 100% true, it can not be because you always have the bias of the reporter.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
no. In fact, most newspapers and channels are biased against Israel. The real story is that Hamas has been launching over missiles for several years, but recently, it just got worse. Hamas has been launching over 100 missiles a day, killing civilians. On the other hand, Israel is just protecting its country. Israel warns Hamas 30 minutes before because they hate killing civilians. Hamas then literately drags women and children civilians to the building in which it is being bombed and use them as a human shield. Unfortunately, the media isn't really showing this side of the war. Watch Fox News to get a better update on the war.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
The overwhelming majority is filled with complete crap. Many tend to cling to the one that they agree with the most. Some swear by Fox News while others will cling to CNN or the New York Times saying it's the most accurate. Really, those news sources are just telling them what they like to hear.
Remember that the overall objective in the news is to sell stories. A good number (well.. most) of reporters over there will base stories off of hearsay without being able to substantiate them. Some will go out of their way to get everything right, though those gems are far less common (They're easy to pick out by having good stories with absolutely no negative or positive spin).
My brother once told me of a case in Iraq that he looked into. A reporter was looking for some kind of information on a shooting. He was going to write a story about how coalition troops shot a nine year-old girl in the head while on patrol in Iraq. Looking deeper into the story (it only too him a few hours to find out what actually happened), he found that what had actually happened was that some Iraqi man got shot in the leg by an insurgent (they think it may have been someone the guy knew). To that reporter and through a giant game of telephone, that somehow translated into a little girl getting shot in the head. Yea. No bias there...
I doubt most would believe it, but the military's news is actually extremely accurate. Heh, unfortunately that also makes it very dry and boring. There have been cases of high ranking officers losing their commissions for spreading false stories. Most don't want to hear it though. I'd imagine because of the case of ';ZOMFG T3H EVIL GOVRNMT CONTRLZ UR MINDZ THINK FOR URSLF!!!11!!1!'; When you have large groups of people who band together and think like this (as well as when they all think alike), who are the ones thinking for themselves?
The more accurate, balanced, and unbiased news sources are from Reuters and the Washington Post.
You won't see this
http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Demonstr鈥?/a>
Each news channel or web site doesn't tell the whole story or shortens it to save time, leaving out some important details. Choose a reliable news website, like CNN, and read the articles over it, whole. Also news over it from different countries.
No not any newspaper or channel. You have to read news from different countries as well as the US and form your own OPINION on what is going on. Not even intelligence agencies KNOW whats going on a lot of the time.
There is no way to know whether it is 100% true.
I do find that watching BBC News covers some topics about the war that our news stations don't.
The stories your hear in the news are always going to be distorted.
everything you hear on tv especially coming form them, has been fixed to make us look bad.
Who knows? This is what we like to call 'Yellow Journalism'.
only if your a liberal
noooo
never 100% true 50 % true ok xxmyspace codes
You need to look at several different sources and you might get an idea about the true story, but not always.
Nothing is 100% true, it can not be because you always have the bias of the reporter.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
no. In fact, most newspapers and channels are biased against Israel. The real story is that Hamas has been launching over missiles for several years, but recently, it just got worse. Hamas has been launching over 100 missiles a day, killing civilians. On the other hand, Israel is just protecting its country. Israel warns Hamas 30 minutes before because they hate killing civilians. Hamas then literately drags women and children civilians to the building in which it is being bombed and use them as a human shield. Unfortunately, the media isn't really showing this side of the war. Watch Fox News to get a better update on the war.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
The overwhelming majority is filled with complete crap. Many tend to cling to the one that they agree with the most. Some swear by Fox News while others will cling to CNN or the New York Times saying it's the most accurate. Really, those news sources are just telling them what they like to hear.
Remember that the overall objective in the news is to sell stories. A good number (well.. most) of reporters over there will base stories off of hearsay without being able to substantiate them. Some will go out of their way to get everything right, though those gems are far less common (They're easy to pick out by having good stories with absolutely no negative or positive spin).
My brother once told me of a case in Iraq that he looked into. A reporter was looking for some kind of information on a shooting. He was going to write a story about how coalition troops shot a nine year-old girl in the head while on patrol in Iraq. Looking deeper into the story (it only too him a few hours to find out what actually happened), he found that what had actually happened was that some Iraqi man got shot in the leg by an insurgent (they think it may have been someone the guy knew). To that reporter and through a giant game of telephone, that somehow translated into a little girl getting shot in the head. Yea. No bias there...
I doubt most would believe it, but the military's news is actually extremely accurate. Heh, unfortunately that also makes it very dry and boring. There have been cases of high ranking officers losing their commissions for spreading false stories. Most don't want to hear it though. I'd imagine because of the case of ';ZOMFG T3H EVIL GOVRNMT CONTRLZ UR MINDZ THINK FOR URSLF!!!11!!1!'; When you have large groups of people who band together and think like this (as well as when they all think alike), who are the ones thinking for themselves?
The more accurate, balanced, and unbiased news sources are from Reuters and the Washington Post.
You won't see this
http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Demonstr鈥?/a>
Each news channel or web site doesn't tell the whole story or shortens it to save time, leaving out some important details. Choose a reliable news website, like CNN, and read the articles over it, whole. Also news over it from different countries.
No not any newspaper or channel. You have to read news from different countries as well as the US and form your own OPINION on what is going on. Not even intelligence agencies KNOW whats going on a lot of the time.
There is no way to know whether it is 100% true.
I do find that watching BBC News covers some topics about the war that our news stations don't.
The stories your hear in the news are always going to be distorted.
everything you hear on tv especially coming form them, has been fixed to make us look bad.
Who knows? This is what we like to call 'Yellow Journalism'.
only if your a liberal
noooo
never 100% true 50 % true ok xx
Who knows their East Asian History? Will you answer these true/false questions?
1. The earliest Korean account of the original myth of the Koreans records a legend about a Chinese exile, Qizi from the Shang dynasty, who founded a state in Korea.
2. The Chinese-styled civil service examination system adopted in Silla provided opportunities to people from lower-ranking class who wanted to improve their social or political status.
3. The Yi dynasty defeated the Mongols who had invaded and colonized part of the Koryo regime in the 14th century, and unified and ruled Korea from then to 1910.
4. During the Edo era, Japanese commoners had no access to receive any kabuki training because the founder of kabuki was a nobleman who created this form of performance for the entertainment of the royal clan.Who knows their East Asian History? Will you answer these true/false questions?
im failin history so idk
2. The Chinese-styled civil service examination system adopted in Silla provided opportunities to people from lower-ranking class who wanted to improve their social or political status.
3. The Yi dynasty defeated the Mongols who had invaded and colonized part of the Koryo regime in the 14th century, and unified and ruled Korea from then to 1910.
4. During the Edo era, Japanese commoners had no access to receive any kabuki training because the founder of kabuki was a nobleman who created this form of performance for the entertainment of the royal clan.Who knows their East Asian History? Will you answer these true/false questions?
im failin history so idk
Is it true that most of the babies born in East Germany after WW ll were half Russian?
For at least a generation?Is it true that most of the babies born in East Germany after WW ll were half Russian?
The historical subject of the rapes committed by Soviet soldiers against women and girls (German, Hungarian, Polish, Yugoslav, Chinese, and others) during and after the Second World War still seems controversial, particularly in Russia today. Using many German, Russian, and English-language sources, I have studied this subject in detail.
'Is it true that most of the babies born in East Germany after WW II were half-Russian
for at least a generation?'
No, that's untrue. While it was common for German women and girls to be raped by
Soviet soldiers (many of whom were not Russian) from 1945 (the war's last year)
until long after the war, most rapes did not result in pregnancies, and many such pregnancies did not result in the victims (who preferred to have abortions) giving birth. Many rape victims died as a consequence of internal injuries (after being brutally violated), untreated sexually transmitted diseases (the needed drugs were hardly ever available for women in Germany soon after the war), badly performed abortions, or suicides (particularly for traumatised victims who had been raped many times).
The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949
by Norman Naimark, an American historian, states that it was common for Soviet
soldiers to rape German women (an enjoyable 'perk of occupation') long after the war.
Consequently, German women had a significantly lower level of approval than German men had toward Soviet Communism or the Soviet military occupation of Germany.
'While the battle continued, another savage onslaught was going on. It was grim and personal. The hordes of Russian troops coming up behind the disciplined front-line veterans now demanded the rights due the conquerors: the women of the conquered.'
--Cornelius Ryan (The Last Battle, 1966)
In his book on the 1945 Battle of Berlin, Cornelius Ryan described (based on his interviews with victims) the rapes of at least several German women by Soviet soldiers.
Soviet officers varied in their attitudes toward rape,which officially was a major crime under Soviet military laws. On one hand, some Soviet officers ordered the executions of some Soviet soldiers who were believed guilty of rape. On the other hand, some Soviet officers participated in rape or encouraged their men to rape (out of a sense of revenge or perhaps to promote more 'male-bonding' within a unit). Broadly speaking, most Soviet soldiers seem to have condoned (or been unable to restrain their men) most rapes committed by Soviet soldiers toward the end of or shortly after the war. There seems to have been a popular attitude among Soviet soldiers that German or Hungarian (Hungary was allied with Germany until the end) women and girls were their rightful 'spoils of war' to be taken by force and freely enjoyed in celebrating victory.
As far as I know (yes, I have spoken with some Russians), the general attitude in Russia today toward the historical subject of the many rapes committed by Soviet soldiers during or after the Second World War is one of denial (admitting there were a few rapes at most) or complete rationalization ('the Nazis brutally raped our country first, so our soldiers have the right to take revenge by raping some German women'). The 2003 publication of the Fall of Berlin 1945 by Antony Beevor, a British military historian, which (like Cornelius Ryan's earlier book) described some (of the many) rapes of German women by Soviet soldiers, provoked outrage among many Russians, who liked to deny that Soviet soldiers had done anything wrong in their treatment of German women and girls. In my view, the overwhelming evidence (from many sources, including Soviet) makes such vehement denials seem motivated by nothing more than self-righteous nationalism and a dishonest refusal to face the facts. In the interest of fairness, I am not singling out the Soviet peoples or the Russian people for moral condemnation. War crimes have been committed by combatants of about every nationality, race, and religion. With regard to the subject of rape in the Second World War, the crimes of Japanese soldiers in China were perhaps the worst of all. And, while it's not as bad as the Japanese in China, American soldiers have a bad record of rape (most of which has been censored in the US media) in their Asian wars, and most Americans seem deeply in denial about US war crimes (which tend to be ignored or whitewashed in the 'patriotic' US media).
Through the Maelstrom: A Red Army Soldier's War on the Eastern Front, 1942-45 by Boris Gorbachevsky is a memoir, which discusses the subject of rape by Soviet soldiers with remarkable honesty. Recently, a Russian woman historian (who grew up after the war) asserted that it was rare for Soviet soldiers to rape German women and, in those rare cases, the rapists were properly punished by Soviet military justice. Based on what he had observed in wartime, Boris Gorbachevsky wrote that this Russian woman historian was extremely ignorant and misinformed about the realities of rape in the Soviet Army. According to Boris Gorbachevsky, rape was a common practice among Soviet soldiers (he roughly estimated that 1/3 of Soviet soldiers had raped at least one woman or girl), and most Soviet officers seemed to do little or nothing to discipline their men for it. Although a few Soviet soldiers were executed for rape, a Soviet soldier could rape a woman in Germany while usually feeling quite confident that he never would be punished for it. Indeed, Boris Gorbachevsky was present at a gathering of Soviet soldiers, who (except himself) boasted about how many German women they already had raped and how much they had enjoyed it.
The excuse that Soviet soldiers (selectively) raped German women only to avenge much worse Nazi war crimes is without merit. It's true, of course, that the Axis (primarily the Germans, but other nationalities, such as the Romanians, also were responsible) committed many terrible war crimes in the USSR. But it's untrue that Soviet soldiers were so carefully discriminating as to select only apparently pro-Nazi German women to rape for revenge. Many of their rape victims were too young (girls) to have had any legal or moral responsibilities for the war. Some of their rape victims were undoubtedly anti-Nazi, in fact, being Jews or Communists. Particularly when they were drunk, Soviet soldiers were not choosy about their rape victims, almost any female would do to satisfy their lusts. Indeed, Soviet soldiers raped many women and girls from some countries that were allied with the USSR. Milovan Djilas, a Yugoslav Communist, complained to Stalin that Soviet soldiers had raped many Yugoslav women while briefly passing through Yugoslavia (Stalin replied that his soldiers were naturally just having some fun.). In his book Retribution: The Battle of Japan 1944-45, Max Hastings, a British military historians, wrote that many Chinese women were raped by Soviet soldiers when they liberated parts of China from Japanese rule.
In addition to the books that I have mentioned, here are some books of interest:
A Woman in Berlin is the journal of a German rape victim.
The Siege of Budapest by Krisztian Ungvary (Many Hungarian women were raped.)
Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945 by Catherine MerridaleIs it true that most of the babies born in East Germany after WW ll were half Russian?
No,it's physically impossible.
When Russian soldiers entered East Germany,they didn't have time to get physical with most of German women because they were fighting the Nazis.Even if they did,still they couldn't have made love to most of them and not every woman gets pregnant after having sex.
Some of German citizens of that time,at least for one generation were half German for sure,but not most of them.
Hope that helped.
-Nina
some russsian men did something to german women
some german men did something to russian women
this has been going on since world war 1
uh....no.
how'd we suppose ta know man!
The historical subject of the rapes committed by Soviet soldiers against women and girls (German, Hungarian, Polish, Yugoslav, Chinese, and others) during and after the Second World War still seems controversial, particularly in Russia today. Using many German, Russian, and English-language sources, I have studied this subject in detail.
'Is it true that most of the babies born in East Germany after WW II were half-Russian
for at least a generation?'
No, that's untrue. While it was common for German women and girls to be raped by
Soviet soldiers (many of whom were not Russian) from 1945 (the war's last year)
until long after the war, most rapes did not result in pregnancies, and many such pregnancies did not result in the victims (who preferred to have abortions) giving birth. Many rape victims died as a consequence of internal injuries (after being brutally violated), untreated sexually transmitted diseases (the needed drugs were hardly ever available for women in Germany soon after the war), badly performed abortions, or suicides (particularly for traumatised victims who had been raped many times).
The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949
by Norman Naimark, an American historian, states that it was common for Soviet
soldiers to rape German women (an enjoyable 'perk of occupation') long after the war.
Consequently, German women had a significantly lower level of approval than German men had toward Soviet Communism or the Soviet military occupation of Germany.
'While the battle continued, another savage onslaught was going on. It was grim and personal. The hordes of Russian troops coming up behind the disciplined front-line veterans now demanded the rights due the conquerors: the women of the conquered.'
--Cornelius Ryan (The Last Battle, 1966)
In his book on the 1945 Battle of Berlin, Cornelius Ryan described (based on his interviews with victims) the rapes of at least several German women by Soviet soldiers.
Soviet officers varied in their attitudes toward rape,which officially was a major crime under Soviet military laws. On one hand, some Soviet officers ordered the executions of some Soviet soldiers who were believed guilty of rape. On the other hand, some Soviet officers participated in rape or encouraged their men to rape (out of a sense of revenge or perhaps to promote more 'male-bonding' within a unit). Broadly speaking, most Soviet soldiers seem to have condoned (or been unable to restrain their men) most rapes committed by Soviet soldiers toward the end of or shortly after the war. There seems to have been a popular attitude among Soviet soldiers that German or Hungarian (Hungary was allied with Germany until the end) women and girls were their rightful 'spoils of war' to be taken by force and freely enjoyed in celebrating victory.
As far as I know (yes, I have spoken with some Russians), the general attitude in Russia today toward the historical subject of the many rapes committed by Soviet soldiers during or after the Second World War is one of denial (admitting there were a few rapes at most) or complete rationalization ('the Nazis brutally raped our country first, so our soldiers have the right to take revenge by raping some German women'). The 2003 publication of the Fall of Berlin 1945 by Antony Beevor, a British military historian, which (like Cornelius Ryan's earlier book) described some (of the many) rapes of German women by Soviet soldiers, provoked outrage among many Russians, who liked to deny that Soviet soldiers had done anything wrong in their treatment of German women and girls. In my view, the overwhelming evidence (from many sources, including Soviet) makes such vehement denials seem motivated by nothing more than self-righteous nationalism and a dishonest refusal to face the facts. In the interest of fairness, I am not singling out the Soviet peoples or the Russian people for moral condemnation. War crimes have been committed by combatants of about every nationality, race, and religion. With regard to the subject of rape in the Second World War, the crimes of Japanese soldiers in China were perhaps the worst of all. And, while it's not as bad as the Japanese in China, American soldiers have a bad record of rape (most of which has been censored in the US media) in their Asian wars, and most Americans seem deeply in denial about US war crimes (which tend to be ignored or whitewashed in the 'patriotic' US media).
Through the Maelstrom: A Red Army Soldier's War on the Eastern Front, 1942-45 by Boris Gorbachevsky is a memoir, which discusses the subject of rape by Soviet soldiers with remarkable honesty. Recently, a Russian woman historian (who grew up after the war) asserted that it was rare for Soviet soldiers to rape German women and, in those rare cases, the rapists were properly punished by Soviet military justice. Based on what he had observed in wartime, Boris Gorbachevsky wrote that this Russian woman historian was extremely ignorant and misinformed about the realities of rape in the Soviet Army. According to Boris Gorbachevsky, rape was a common practice among Soviet soldiers (he roughly estimated that 1/3 of Soviet soldiers had raped at least one woman or girl), and most Soviet officers seemed to do little or nothing to discipline their men for it. Although a few Soviet soldiers were executed for rape, a Soviet soldier could rape a woman in Germany while usually feeling quite confident that he never would be punished for it. Indeed, Boris Gorbachevsky was present at a gathering of Soviet soldiers, who (except himself) boasted about how many German women they already had raped and how much they had enjoyed it.
The excuse that Soviet soldiers (selectively) raped German women only to avenge much worse Nazi war crimes is without merit. It's true, of course, that the Axis (primarily the Germans, but other nationalities, such as the Romanians, also were responsible) committed many terrible war crimes in the USSR. But it's untrue that Soviet soldiers were so carefully discriminating as to select only apparently pro-Nazi German women to rape for revenge. Many of their rape victims were too young (girls) to have had any legal or moral responsibilities for the war. Some of their rape victims were undoubtedly anti-Nazi, in fact, being Jews or Communists. Particularly when they were drunk, Soviet soldiers were not choosy about their rape victims, almost any female would do to satisfy their lusts. Indeed, Soviet soldiers raped many women and girls from some countries that were allied with the USSR. Milovan Djilas, a Yugoslav Communist, complained to Stalin that Soviet soldiers had raped many Yugoslav women while briefly passing through Yugoslavia (Stalin replied that his soldiers were naturally just having some fun.). In his book Retribution: The Battle of Japan 1944-45, Max Hastings, a British military historians, wrote that many Chinese women were raped by Soviet soldiers when they liberated parts of China from Japanese rule.
In addition to the books that I have mentioned, here are some books of interest:
A Woman in Berlin is the journal of a German rape victim.
The Siege of Budapest by Krisztian Ungvary (Many Hungarian women were raped.)
Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945 by Catherine MerridaleIs it true that most of the babies born in East Germany after WW ll were half Russian?
No,it's physically impossible.
When Russian soldiers entered East Germany,they didn't have time to get physical with most of German women because they were fighting the Nazis.Even if they did,still they couldn't have made love to most of them and not every woman gets pregnant after having sex.
Some of German citizens of that time,at least for one generation were half German for sure,but not most of them.
Hope that helped.
-Nina
some russsian men did something to german women
some german men did something to russian women
this has been going on since world war 1
uh....no.
how'd we suppose ta know man!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)