Examining Mass Rape During the Fall of Berlin

By Aimee Noe

Throughout history, rape has been used as a means to exert dominance over one’s enemy. Treated as "spoils of war," women and young girls are assaulted, tortured, and murdered in an effort to display their superiority over their adversary. Nowhere was this more evident than during the fall of Berlin at the end of World War II (WWII). After the tide of war turned and the Red Army invaded Germany, women withstood the worst of Soviet retaliation. Until recently, very little consideration has been given to the causes of mass rape during times of war, but with a renewed interest in feminist history, we are gaining greater insight into the impact of conflict on society as a whole. The following examines three scholars’ perspectives on the causes of rape during WWII. Norman M. Naimark, author of The Russians in Germany: A History Of The Soviet Zone Of Occupation, 1945 – 1949 (1995), Antony Beevor, author of Berlin The Downfall 1945 (2002), and Jonathan Gottschall, author of Explaining Wartime Rape (2004).

The first historian to examine this is Norman M. Naimark. Naimark studied and received his B.A. (1966), M.A. (1968), and Ph.D. (1972) from Stanford University and was a Professor of History at Boston University and a Fellow of the Russian Research Center at Harvard for over fifteen years.^[1] In seeking to identify the contributing factors that incited the mass rapes of German women during the fall of Berlin, Naimark claims that, “with the combination of hate propaganda, personal experiences of suffering at home, and a fully demeaning picture of German women in the press, not to mention among the soldiers themselves, Soviet officers and men easily turned on the “Frau” as their victim." ^[2] Coming off of what they considered to be a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Germans during World War I (WWI), Russian officials played on these emotions through the use of propaganda. As Soviet troops made their way into Germany and eventually Berlin, they were bombarded with images and rhetoric reminding them of the atrocities committed upon them, their families, and their communities. Military leaders, such as General N.E. Berzarin, the Soviet commandant of Berlin, condoned acts of violence and “excused the excesses of Soviet troops stating: “During my whole life I have seen nothing like the bestial way German officers and soldiers pursued the peaceful population [of Russia]. All of the destruction you have here in Germany is nothing in comparison.” ^[3] Furthermore, “newspapers encouraged people to cite the harm done to themselves and their families” and to keep a “book of revenge” that would remind them of the need to repay Germans for their evil.^[4] German women, in particular, were a point of contention and were primarily depicted as “fat and spoiled wives, living the good life behind the front.” ^[5] Exhausted, starving, and far from home, the constant bombardment of propaganda only served to increase their desire for revenge. Fueled by propaganda and with the support of military leadership, the need for vengeance continued to increase the farther into Germany the Red Army pushed, and “rape became a convenient outlet for those emotions.” ^[6] Defeating the Germans would not be enough to restore the honor of Soviet men; “only total degradation of Germany and its people would secure for Russia the ultimate victory.” ^[7] Like a powder keg set to explode this combination “of an inferiority complex, a desire for revenge, and the occupation of Germany was humiliating, if not deadly for German women.” ^[8] Further support of the revenge theory can also be found “in the response of the SVAG veteran I.S. Drabkin during an interview in which he stated the majority of those committing sexual assault were former Soviet POWs, “who harbored the most resentment of Germans.” ^[9] Naimark also takes into account the lack of oversight by military leadership and ample supply of alcohol seized from German homes and businesses as secondary contributing factors in instigating the mass sexual assault of German women during occupation. Thus, left to their own devices and fueled by alcohol, this deep-seated hatred and the burning desire for revenge led the Red Army to seek out the most effective way to humiliate and destroy Germany as a whole: through its women.

The second evaluation of theories on mass rape during the fall of Berlin comes from Sir Antony Beevor. Beevor was educated at Winchester and Sandhurst, where he studied military history under John Keegan. A regular officer with the 11th Hussars, he left the Army to pursue a career in writing. He has published four novels, and thirteen non-fiction books, including Berlin The Downfall 1945. Published in 2002 Berlin The Downfall 1945, was the number one bestseller in seven countries and received the first Longman-History Today Trustees’ Award.^[10] Unlike Naimark who surmises that sociocultural factors led to the mass rape of German women and young girls during Soviet occupation, Beevor favored a biosocial theory. According to Beevor, the mass rape of German women surrounding the fall of Berlin can be explained, at least in part through biology and what he deems to be the four-stage evolution of wartime rape. Beevor theorized that “There is a dark area of male sexuality which can emerge, all too easily, especially in war, when there are no social and disciplinary restraints” and that “undisciplined soldiers, without fear of retribution, can rapidly revert to a primitive male sexuality.” ^[11] Unlike Naimark, Beevor postulated that the most influential factor was the lack of leadership within the Red Army and from above. Most officers had little to no control over their troops or those that were stationed nearby and even orders, such as No.006, issued by Marshal Rokossovsky, which instructed soldiers to direct their anger at the battlefield or face severe punishment, had little to no effect.^[12] More often than not however the brutalization of women and young girls went unchecked. Even when the assaults were occurring right in front of Soviet headquarters, and reports of women killing their daughters and then committing suicide came pouring in most officers turned the other cheek or found the reports amusing, ^[13] flat-out denied the accusations blaming the assaults on rear men,^[14] or claimed that “when you breed a true feeling of hatred in a soldier the soldier will not try and have sex with a German woman because he will be repulsed.” ^[15] Thus, in the eyes of those that had the power to put an end to the German women’s suffering, there was nothing that needed to be done. The second most influential factor leading to the rapes of women during the occupation of Berlin, according to Beevor was alcohol. Propaganda, Beevor thought, could only go so far in explaining the sheer hatred and desire the Soviets had for revenge; it was alcohol that led to the indiscriminate behavior that propelled the Red Army to assault women. Records show that consumption among troops had reached such a level that the NKVD reported numerous instances of alcohol poisoning and that once Berlin had fallen, Soviet troops continued to rape women as “spoils of war” during their many celebrations.^[16] This is especially evident, according to Beevor, in the fact that Soviet troops raped not only German women but Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, Belorussian, and female prisoners of war or the “German Dolls.” ^[17] Continuing with this biological explanation Beevor claims that sexual repression should also be accounted for. According to Beevor, “Stalin ensured that Soviet society depicted itself as virtually asexual.” ^[18] Conformity was the key to Russian success and desire should be channeled into “love for the party, and above all, the Great Leader.” ^[19] Decades of suppressed desires and emotions, total ignorance about sexuality and women, and the “dehumanizing influence of modern propaganda” ^[20] created what some have described as ‘barracks eroticism’ which played on man’s most primal and violent urges. Lastly, Beevor cites ‘normal wartime behavior” as an influencing factor in the rapes of German women. The “impersonal violence of war itself,” “the compulsion to treat women as substitutes for the defeat of an enemy,” ^[21] a soldier’s right to the “spoils of war,” ^[22] and “bonding through collective rape,” ^[23] all served to increase the numbers of assault to unprecedented levels.

The final scholar’s perspective to examine is that of Jonathan Gottschall. Gottschall is an American literary scholar specializing in literature and evolution and holds the title of Research Fellow in the English department of Washington & Jefferson College in Pennsylvania.^[24] Author of seven books and numerous journal articles, including Explaining Wartime Rape (2004), Gottschall examines the evolution of violence and the sociological impact of rape on culture throughout history. According to Gottschall, wartime rape can be attributed to four theories: the feminist theory, the cultural pathology theory, the strategic rape theory, and the biological determinist theory. Examining first, the feminist theory, Gottschall claims that rape in war is a crime motivated by exerting dominance over women and opposes the assumption that biological needs out way morality creating a “pressure cooker” that eventually leads to sexual assault. Instead, he states that patriarchal societies create a “misogynist pressure cooker” in which men are taught to “distrust, despise, and dominate women.” ^[25] However, this theory cannot account for a non-patriarchal society’s propensity for wartime assault. Second, Gottschall explores the cultural pathology theory of rape. Proponents of this theory analyze a culture’s history to see what causes contribute to records of mass rape and conclude that factors such as military culture, an ingrained contempt for women as subservient, and the dehumanization of women through pornography combine to increase the likelihood of sexual assault during conflict.^[26] Third, the strategic rape theory holds the most credence among scholars today. The strategic rape theory claims that “wholesale rape represents just another ordinance – like bombs, bullets, or propaganda – that a military can use to accomplish its strategic objectives.” ^[27] Thus, rape in war is a tactic used to reach a larger objective and history has proven that the effect on an occupied population incites terror, decreases resistance, and demoralizes, humiliates, and emasculates the enemy. Furthermore, it serves as a form of cultural genocide whose aim is to annihilate a people by limiting their means of reproduction.^[28] Lastly, Gottschall puts very little credence into claims, such as those made by Antony Beevor, that rape is rooted in biological factors. Biological determinist theorists claim that biological factors promote rape. That rape is a “genetic reflex to spread one’s seed,” which is “restrained under normal conditions,” but “anytime you have hostile soldiers mixed with civilians there will be high rates of rape.” ^[29] Relying almost wholly on man’s inability to control his libido, this theory does not account for those men who refrained or tried to stop assaults or the extreme violence and murder that was perpetrated on the majority of the Red Army’s victims. Evaluating all of these theories, Gottschall concludes that rape in a time of war is a complex combination of interconnected factors and supports a biosocial theory to explain rates of sexual assault during the fall of Berlin and that by combining “sociocultural factors… the who, what, when, where, and how of mass wartime rape,” ^[30] with biological factors, researchers can come closer to identifying effective strategies for decreasing wartime mass rape.

We may never have an accurate account of the number of German women and young girls that were assaulted by the Red Army during World War II. Some estimates claim as few as 100,000 while others place it at nearly two million. According to Naimark, “neither in memoirs nor in histories of the period is the issue of rape treated as a proper subject of discussion.” ^[31] Many cite collective shame or a lack of transparency and access to Russian archives as primary contributing factors, however, the wealth of studies done on WWII to date negates this reasoning. In reality, until recently, there has been a general tendency to ignore the importance of woman’s experience during conflict. Without this crucial perspective, we will never be able to fully understand the impact that such conflicts have on society as a whole.

[1] Stanford University. 2022. Stanford University Department of History: Norman Naimark. 08 05. Accessed February 1, 2022. https://history.stanford.edu/people/norman-naimark.

[2] Naimark, Norman M. 1995. A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

[3] Ibid., 108

[4] Ibid., 108

[5] Ibid., 108-109

[6] Ibid., 107-108

[7] Ibid., 114

[8] Ibid., 91

[9] Ibid., 91

[10] Antony Beever. 2022. Antony Beever - Biography. Accessed 04 01, 2022. https://www.antonybeevor.com/biography/.

[11] Beevor, Antony. 2002. Berlin the Downfall 1945. New York: Penguin Group.

[12] Ibid., 30

[13] Ibid., 327

[14] Ibid., 65

[15] Ibid., 30

[16] Ibid., 31

[17] Ibid., 107-108

[18] Ibid., 31

[19] Ibid., 32

[20] Ibid., 32

[21] Ibid., 300

[22] Ibid., 326

[23] Ibid., 324

[24] Gotschall, Jonathan. 2012. Jonathan Gotschall About. 02 01. Accessed 03 25, 2022. https://www.jonathangottschall.com/about.

[25]Gottschall, Jonathan. 2004. "Explaining Wartime Rape." The Journal of Sex Research 129-136.

[26] Ibid., 131

[27] Ibid., 131

[28] Ibid., 131-132

[29] Ibid., 133

[30] Ibid., 135

[31] Naimark, Norman M. 1995. A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.