Some Russian sources make claims to the effect of "Beevor is revisionist and anti-Soviet propagandist".
What is the basis for this criticism?
For the antecedents of the question, see here.
|show 16 more comments|
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.
The view of Beevor as a propagandist rather than a historian is based on the following points:
Use of unreliable sources
In his book "Battle of Berlin" Beevor gives the following claim:
While giving no references to the "Berliners" who remembered screams and any connection between the screams and rapes, regarding the numbers Beevor gives the following footnote:
In fact, it is a reference to a book by German feminists Helke Sander and Barbara Johr "Befreier und Befreite: Krieg, Vergewaltigung, Kinder".
In their book Sander and Johr define rape as any kind of sex with a person in power, including sex for food, prostitution, sex for getting job etc. This definition of rape is certainly not mainstream and does not reflect any country's criminal code. But Beevor does not warn the reader about the fact that Johr and Sander use a very specific definition of "rape".
The book includes an estimate of the rapes victims based on data from Berlin's clinic Kaiserin Auguste Victoria. From 01.09.1945 to 31.12.1946 this clinic registered 9 cases of rape by Russians (according the words of the women, as the clinic did not verify the validity of the claims):
In total there were 32 cases of kids born whose father was Russian. Sander and Johr assume that all children born to Russian fathers were a result of rape, excluding the possibility of voluntary relationships (how a German Aryan woman can voluntarily engage with those subhumans?).
Taking this data they postulate that of all 23124 kids born in Berlin 5% (1156) had Russian father (i.e. were result of rape).
Further they postulate that 90% raped (i.e. 90% of all women engaged with Russians) conducted abortion. This way they multiply 1156 by 10 to arrive at 11560 "raped".
By assuming that pregnancy followed a rape in 20% cases (based in the data from Charité) they miltiply the figure by 5 to arrive at 57800. They then assume that all women from 14 to 18 and older than 45 were raped in the same proportion (oh yes, Russians do not differ between a young woman and a 80-year-old hag) so to arrive at the figure of 110000 raped, derived from 9 reported rape cases.
The second part of the Beevor's claim, that each 1 in 10 raped women died "mostly of suicide" as well as "2 million raped German women" Sander and Johr attribute to Gerhard Reichsling. Being named a "doctor" the reader may think that he was an employee of a mentioned clinic. This is not true, he was just a statistician. Sander and Johr say that he made the calulation for them privately.
Neither the methods, nor the data used in this calculation were ever published by Reichsling. It is thus impossible to verify the data because Reichsling is dead. Yet Beevor references him.
Use of anecdotal evidence
The rest of evidence which Beevor uses to support his claims and drive conclusions is just picked stories narrated by Germans or Russians, sometimes, third-hand accounts.
An example, a reference to an anonymous female diarist:
Of course, Ivans, as subhumans have no sense of beauty.
These quotes are provided with references to a famous researcher:
Another exerpts from the book:
Besides this, the book is full of details which have no historical relevance such as descriptions of the "out-of-body" experiences of the victims:
Use of slanderous language
Beevor does little to restrain himself in wording and language, sometimes attempting to attribute hate speech to unnamed witnesses. In many cases he makes collective accusations against Red Army soldiers:
And, of course, these sub-humans all were alcoholics:
After all the blame for the atrocities possibly should lay on the German authorities who failed to destroy alcohol in time so to prevent those savages to take it:
|show 2 more comments|
That he correctly portrayed Stalin (and his political enforcers) as someone who saw his own people as a resource to be used and wasted as he saw fit. He cared little for his own people and everything for his own image.
In terms of human genocide he's right up there with the very worst of the 20th century alongside Mao and Hitler.
It's no coincidence that the loss of Russian life was almost as much as the German and allied losses put together.
No surprise then that the Russians don't think particularly highly of anyone who might criticise him.