Did Allied troops rape 285,000 German women?

[Ronin Truth]

Did Allied troops rape 285,000 German women?

That's the shocking claim in a new book. But is the German feminist behind it exposing a war crime - or slandering heroes?

Book claims Allied troops raped 285,000 German women during invasion
There are numerous cases of rape recorded by Allied officers during war
However, the alarming figure is based on assumptions and lacks evidence
British and U.S. soldiers could, and were, executed for committing rape

By Guy Walters for the Daily Mail

Published: 17:40 EST, 25 March 2015

There were rules against Allied soldiers fraternising with civilian women during the Second World War but they were routinely ignored

There was no doubt that Private Blake W. Mariano of the 191st Tank Battalion was a brave man. As part of the American Army's 45th Infantry Division, he had killed many Germans as he fought through Africa, Italy and southern France, before finally, in March 1945, he and his Sherman tank had crossed the Rhine into Germany.

By April 15, 1945, Mariano had been away from his home in New Mexico for nearly three years. A father of three, the 29-year-old was divorced, although he did have a girlfriend in England.

His loved ones, however, were far from his mind that evening. During the day, his unit had successfully overrun the large village of Lauf on the edge of the Black Forest in south-western Germany, and Mariano decided it was time to celebrate.
Accompanied by another American private, Mariano went out drinking. After finding a well-stocked cellar, the two men quickly became inebriated on cognac, at which point they went looking to complete their evening.

They found what they wanted in an air raid shelter under the town's castle. Huddled there were 17 villagers, two of whom were children.

Mariano pointed his rifle at a young woman called Elfriede. Aged just 21, Elfriede worked in an office, and had a fiancé who was away fighting. Mariano took her outside and raped her. After he had finished, his companion did the same.

Still not sated, Mariano returned to the shelter and chose a 41-year-old woman called Martha. When it became apparent that she was menstruating, Mariano shot her. It would take Martha until the following morning to die.

In a final act of savagery, Mariano selected one more woman, a 54-year-old shopkeeper called Babette, who he also raped. His 'entertainment' now over, Mariano finally returned to his tank.

The following morning, Martha's husband returned to the village after being discharged from the Army. He might have thought that he and his wife were now safe, having survived six long years of war.

As soon as he had discovered what had happened, the widower went straight to the Americans, who immediately launched an investigation.

Just over three weeks later, on May 8, Mariano was arrested and charged. In his defence, he claimed not to remember a thing. The villagers of Lauf would have no such problem. What Mariano had done in a few hours that one night would remain with them for decades.

Never mind that the German population was complicit in countless horrors.

One of the enduring narratives of World War II is that during the invasion of the Third Reich, British and American troops largely behaved well, and it was the soldiers of the Soviet Union's Red Army who raped hundreds of thousands of German females, aged from eight to 80.

However, a new book published in Germany makes the shocking and disturbing claim that the Americans raped a staggering 190,000 women in the decade from the invasion until West Germany became a sovereign country in 1955.
In When The Soldiers Came, historian Professor Miriam Gebhardt also suggests the British raped 45,000 German women, and the French a further 50,000.

It should be stressed that Dr Gebhardt is not a specialist World War II historian, but is better known for her works on other topics, such as the feminist movement in Germany, the philosopher Rudolf Steiner and the history of education.

She has also spoken at conferences on Left-wing politics, and it is therefore tempting to regard Dr Gebhardt as one of many academics who is not entirely minded to view countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom in a positive light.

But, if these figures are correct, then we would not only have to alter dramatically the way we look at how the Allies overran Germany, but also need to make a radical reassessment of what we call 'our greatest generation'.

Is it really possible that the numbers are so high?

In her new book When the Soldiers Came, Professor Miriam Gebhardt (pictured) suggests the Americans raped 190,000 women between 1945 and 1955

Naturally, it would be naïve to deny that the British and American armies had bad apples who carried out such atrocities. But these figures are huge, and would suggest that rape was almost as unexceptional as it was in the Red Army.

What then, is the truth?

When American troops first arrived in Britain in early 1942, they brought with them not only stockings, money and chewing gum, but also sex. For many young GIs, the prospect of being far from the strictures of home in a place where there were many single and available women, was an appealing one.

As is well known, countless relationships developed, from quick flings to marriages that have lasted until today. A huge, open resentment built up against the figure of the 'oversexed' GI, but what was barely discussed was the fact some of the Americans were rapists.

According to an official U.S. Army report, American troops committed 121 rapes when they were stationed in Britain.
Because rape is a notoriously under-reported crime, the true figure is doubtless far higher.

According to the criminologist Sir Leon Radzinowicz, only five per cent of rapes are ever reported, which suggests the Americans could have raped some 2,400 British women.

It is impossible to ever know the truth, but such a figure, although distressing, does seem low compared to the fact 1.5 million U.S. troops were eventually stationed here.

However, it was during the invasion of continental Europe after D-Day that an increasing number of GIs turned to rape.

Although France was an ally, that did not stop U.S. troops from raping an estimated 3,600 French women.

A total of 152 American soldiers were tried for the crime, of whom 29 were hanged.

But it was during the invasion of Germany that incidences of rape grew much higher. As the Americans stormed into the crumbling Reich, troops would shout out at terrified German women: 'Sleep with me!'

And indeed, many German women did sleep with GIs, partly to obtain luxuries, and partly because they wanted to.

However, many sexual encounters were not consenting, and were also accompanied with particularly brutal violence, as some GIs used the act of rape to hit back at a hated enemy.

Many examples are too distressing to report in detail, especially the rapes carried out on children, with one victim being just three years old. Frequently, the crimes would be committed by marauding gangs of drunken GIs, such as the rapes of a woman called Katherine and her 18-year-old daughter, Charlotte, in Sprendlingen, about 40 miles southwest of Frankfurt.

Shortly before midnight one night in March 1945, a group of GIs burst into their home. The two women were forced upstairs, where they were repeatedly raped in the same room for two hours by six Americans, during which Charlotte kept desperately crying out: 'Mama, mama!'

Many such incidents were reported to parish priests. In his journal for July 20, 1945, Michael Merxmüller, a priest near Berchtesgaden, recorded: 'Eight girls and women raped, some of them in front of their parents.'

A few days later, Father Andreas Weingand, from a village near Munich, noted how 'heavily-drunk Americans' had raped a married woman, a single woman, and a 'spotless girl of 16-and-a-half'.

Such acts were not exclusively committed by Americans — British troops also raped German women.

On April 16, 1945, for example, three rapes were reported to have been carried out by British soldiers in the town of Neustadt, 30 miles west of Heidelberg.

Elsewhere, in a village called Oyle, two soldiers dragged a girl into some woods. Unsurprisingly, she started to scream, whereupon one of the troops shot her dead.

But such horrific acts appear to have been rare. As one soldier pointed out years after the war, there was no 'need' to rape women, as many were available for little more than a packet of cigarettes.

One Army major later recalled that he had never come across an incidence of rape by a British soldier, although he acknowledged 'it may well have happened elsewhere'.

In both the British and American armies, the punishment for rape was usually life imprisonment, and in particularly brutal cases, perpetrators were hanged.

Commanding officers, however, were often keen to avoid their men being found guilty, as it would bring shame to a unit, and there are some instances of rapes being covered up.

Nevertheless, courts-martial were by no means reluctant to convict. There is one recorded instance of a British officer being charged with rape, and convicted on the flimsiest of evidence in 1945.

Busted to the ranks, he was imprisoned, and then divorced by his wife. However, two years later, he received a full pardon from the King.

In fact, much of the sex that took place between the British and Germans appeared both consenting and in violation of Montgomery's strict non-fraternisation orders.

'Non-frat was as dead as a Dodo from the time Montgomery closed his mouth,' said one junior officer. 'I didn't go out and chase my chaps away from the women. I didn't have time — I was doing it myself!'

The breaching of the order was so flagrant, that one soldier recalled seeing a 'No Fraternising' sign adorned with six condoms, while another spoke fondly of how buses would be organised to collect German girls to attend parties.

Although it would be wrong to paint a rosy picture, the image that emerges seems somewhat less grim than that painted by Professor Gebhardt.

So where does she get her high figures of 190,000 rapes by the Americans, and 45,000 by the British?

According to the U.S. Army's figures, American troops carried out 552 rapes in Germany. Even if one applies the 'five per cent rule', then this would mean that the total figure is around 11,000.

This is a shockingly high number, to be sure, but nowhere near that of nearly 200,000 by U.S. troops alone.

Instead, Dr Gebhardt has looked at childbirth statistics in West Germany, and has assumed that five per cent of the children born to unmarried women from 1945 until 1955 were as a result of rape.

Of these, she says 1,900 were born to American men.

Even if one were able to accept these assumptions, Dr Gebhardt then takes things to an implausible level. Estimating that for each of these 1,900 births there were 100 rapes, she arrives at her bizarre figure of a total of 190,000 German rape victims.

This number is far too high, and is not supported by any documentary evidence whatsoever. One can only assume that Dr Gebhardt is motivated more by some Leftist anti-American agenda than by proper historical inquiry.

Such absurd claims distract from the nature of the horrors that did occur.

The 21-year-old Elfriede never recovered from her rape by Private Mariano. Her fiancé refused to marry her and she ended up as an alcoholic recluse and died unmarried several years later.

Her rapist, meanwhile, was convicted of murder and rape. During his court-martial, it was revealed that he had a history of sexual offences, and a medical board had classified him as a 'high-grade moron'.

At 11.02am on October 10, 1945, Mariano was asked if he had any last words to say before he was hanged. He did not.

He was declared dead 20 minutes later. In a way, his demise was more merciful than the fates of those he and so many others had destroyed.

dailymail.co.ukhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3011930/Did-Allied-troops-rape-285-000-German-women-s-shocking-claim-new-book-German-feminist-exposing-war-crime-slandering-heroes.html

[RJB]

No surprise. Raping, pillaging, and other cruelties beyond reason happen in every war. War is the ultimate act of unreasoning.

[Acala]

It is simply not possible to have a war without the vast ruin of innocents everywhere in its path. Yet another reason to avoid it except as a last resort to save your own community from invasion.

[Ronin Truth]

No wonder Empire is oh so popular.

[fisharmor]

In When The Soldiers Came, historian Professor Miriam Gebhardt also suggests the British raped 45,000 German women, and the French a further 50,000.

..........That's seriously the name of the book?

[juleswin]

I have heard similar numbers before but its not that very hard to believe. You have a bunch of people who have been fighting and killing the husbands, brothers and fathers of these women. They have lost a lot of men and after their victory, they happen to come upon whole cities and communities where there are no men to defend them.

Horny men seeking vengeance for the dead of their brothers and damaged by war, that is a recipe for disaster. Rape will happen and lots of it.

[otherone]

RAPE?????
Before or after we burned them alive?



I swear to God, warhawks are the most hypocritical retards on the planet.

[Ronin Truth]

According to the late Bob LeFevre, only about 5% of mankind is civilized.

[jmdrake]

I read a book "A Thousand Shall Fall" about a Seventh Day Adventist Christian who was drafted in Hitler's army, worked as an engineer, flatly refused to kill anyone to the point of carrying a fake gun and would go ahead of the army and warn the Jews to flee once he found out about the death camps. In one of the last chapters of the book his wife recalls atrocities being carried out by U.S. soldiers. War is hell and it makes men hellions. The victors write the stories and only recount the good that their soldiers did and the evils that the enemy did. No Christian, in fact no sane person, should push for war. A moral country will only fight defensive wars.

[Ronin Truth]

"WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE": ITS MEANING

This article appeared in The Freeman, July 1999, as "War's Other Casualty."

By Wendy McElroy

In his introduction to "War and the Intellectuals" (1964) -- a collection of Randolph Bourne's essays -- editor Carl Resek explains the meaning of Bourne's famous saying, 'War is the Health of the state,' coined in response to America's participation in World War I. Resek writes, "In its proper place it [the saying] meant that mindless power thrived on war because war corrupted a nation's moral fabric and especially corrupted its intellectuals."(vii) Bourne's famous seven-word slogan, which arose in reaction to World War I, contains a complexity of meaning that is often overlooked by those who use it.

To grasp this complexity, it is necessary to explore the theoretical contexts within which the saying originated.

The State, Government, and Society

Bourne argues that, in times of peace, the majority of people do not give much thought to the State, but deal instead with the Government, which may be viewed as the practical day-to-day "offices and functions" of a State. Bourne defined Government as "a framework of the administration of laws, and the carrying out of the public force. Government is the idea of the State put into practical operation in the hands of definite, concrete, fallible men."(69)

In times of peace, people deal with the Government -- e.g. the post office or the public school system -- rather than with institutions that embody the enduring State -- e.g. the Supreme Court. The people whose jobs make Government function, such as postal workers and grade school teachers, have no sense of sanctity about them. They are what Bourne describes as "common and unsanctified men." Even those elected to political office do not generally inspire admiration, but are usually "indistinguishable from the mass." This egalitarian attitude is part of the American heritage of being a Republic in which there is separation of church and state. Thus, in times of peace, "the sense of the State almost fades out of the consciousness of men."(66) People may rise to honor the flag at ball games but they have few practical reasons to think much about the State.

The American State is more of a concept than a physical reality. It is the political structure established by the American Revolution, which is embodied by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Governments come and go but the State remains essentially the same. It is the State, not Government, that inspires emotions such as awe or patriotism within its citizenry because the State is considered to be sanctified by history and by the popular will. It is to the concept of the American State -- not to any particular Government, Republican or Democratic -- that people pledge allegiance with hands placed over their hearts.

Another key to understanding what is 'America' is the concept of "society", which Bourne refers to as "nation" or "country." Society is the collection of non-political factors that constitute life in America, including: characteristic attitudes, common lore and literature, a shared history, a unique ethnic mix, the prevailing cultural norms. These non-political factors are what make the American society different from a Chinese or French society. They constitute 'the American way.' In times of peace, most people identify more with society than they do with Government. For example, most people define themselves more in relation to a community, religion, or ethnic heritage than in relation to a political party.

Unlike Government, society is not expression of the State, nor can it peacefully co-exist with the State because the two concepts are antagonistic. In an essay entitled "The State," Bourne observes, "Country [society] is a concept of peace, tolerance, of living and letting live. But State is essentially a concept of power, of competition; it signifies a group in its aggressive aspects. And we have the misfortune of being born not only into a country but into a State, and as we grow up we learn to mingle the two feelings into a hopeless confusion."(68)

To sum up the preceding part of Bourne's argument: in times of peace, people identify with society, interact with Government, and only occasionally deal with the sanctified State. Yet the lines separating these three concepts, or institutions, are not clearly drawn.

The Impact of War

Bourne defines war as the ultimate act of Statehood, of "a group in its aggressive aspects," which could not exist with the State. "War is a function...of States," he writes, "and could not occur except in such a system.

Bourne argues that war so blurs the lines separate the State from Government and from society that the lines virtually disappear in the minds of most people. Filled with emotion, the patriot loses "all sense of the distinction between State, nation and government."(67) Bourne describes the process, "Patriotism becomes the dominant feeling, and produces immediately that intense and hopeless confusion between the relations which the individual bears and should bear towards the society of which he is a part." Thus, "Every individual citizen who in peacetimes had no function to perform by which he could imagine himself an expression or living fragment of the State becomes an active amateur agent of the Government in reporting spies and disloyalists, in raising Government funds, or in propagating such measures as are considered necessary by officialdom."(70)

In times of war, the State and Government become virtually identical so that to oppose the Government is considered to be an act of disloyalty to the State. For example, although criticizing the President is a right regularly exercised by almost every American, such criticism becomes an act of treason when that President has just declared war. As Bourne explains, "...objections to the war, luke-warm opinions concerning the necessity or the beauty of conscription, are made subject to ferocious penalties, far exceeding in severity those affixed to actual pragmatic crimes."(70)

The impact of war on 'society' is even more dramatic. Bourne writes, "...in general, the nation in war-time attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war." Instead of embodying its peace time principle of functioning -- 'live and let live,' society adopts the State's principle of "a group" acting "in its aggressive aspects."(71)

This is the theoretical meaning of 'War is the Health of the State.' In times of peace, people are largely defined by their society and they interact with Government, giving little thought to the State. In times of war, the hierarchy and the power of these concepts is inverted. The Government virtually becomes the State, and society is subordinated to both.

The Individual in War Time

What happens to the individual in the process of society and Government being dominated by the State? In times of peace, an individual acts according to his own conscience to secure what he believes to be in his self-interest, which usually includes pursuing prosperity, security for the family, and spending time on unique interests e.g. hobbies. Individuals interact peacefully in society without any necessary co-ordination because the interactions are sparked by a common desire (such as attending a football game, or exchanging goods for money) without any loss of individual choice.

In times of war, individuals become what Bourne refers to as "the herd." He describes what is meant by this term, "The State is the organization of the herd to act offensively or defensively against another herd similarly organized."(69) Bourne clearly acknowledges that the herd is not an emotional whole, but may include a wide range of emotional and intellectual reactions to wartime events and to the war itself. Nevertheless, "by an ingenious mixture of cajolery, agitation, intimidation, the herd is licked into shape, into an effective mechanical unity, if not into a spiritual whole."(82)

Just as the line between the State and society blurs so, too, does the line between the State and the individual. The State attempts to draw upon the powerful force of individual choice by appealing to the patriotism of people and asking them to make the "choice" to enlist and otherwise support the war effort. Usually, the individual obliges because "[in] a nation at war, every citizen identifies himself with the whole, and feels immensely strengthened in that identification."(71) But, if the individual makes the wrong choice -- the choice to not volunteer, to not co-operate with wartime measures -- the State reveals that choice was never the real issue. "Men are told simultaneously that they will enter the military establishment of their own volition, as their splendid sacrifice for their country's welfare, and that if they do not enter they will be hunted down and punished with the most horrid penalties..."(82)

Usually, the individual does not rebel against this massive violation of rights because he feels what Bourne calls "a large element of pure filial mysticism" toward the State, especially the wartime State. Bourne likens this mysticism to the response often offered to religion. "As the Church is the medium for the spiritual salvation of men, so the State is thought of as the medium for his political salvation."(69) The same feeling of patriotism that brings tears to the eyes of those saluting the flag at ball games is magnified by -- some would say 'distorted and exploited by' -- the wartime State to make individuals conform. Feeling strengthened by "identifying with the whole," people cease to be individuals and become, instead, citizens of the State. The man who dissents and remains an individual feels "forlorn and helpless," while those who think and feel as the others in the herd have "the warm feeling of obedience, the soothing irresponsibility of protection."(73)

Thus, "[a] people at war become in the most literal sense obedient, respectful, trustful children again, full of that naive faith in the all-wisdom and all-power of the adult who takes care of them..."(74) "[T]his great herd-machine" functions under "a most indescribable confusion of democratic pride and personal fear" that makes the individuals who constitute the herd "submit to the destruction of their livelihood if not their lives, in a way that would formerly have seemed to them so obnoxious as to be incredible."(82) The individual became a "child on the back of a mad elephant" that he could neither control nor abandon, but was compelled to ride until the elephant decided to halt.

This, too, is the meaning of 'War is the Health of the State': war is the death of individualism.

Conclusion

Bourne's essays written in opposition to World War I while he was on the editorial staff of the New Republic are not typical of anti-war literature. He provides very little in the way of critiquing specific policies. He does not dwell upon the 'Butcher's Bill' of dead soldiers and civilians. He does not rail against the profits reaped by the military-industrial complex, which was collectively called 'the munitions makers' in his day. The thrust of Bourne's essays is to attack the sanctity of war by showing how it leads to the moral collapse of society by kicking out the props (the principles) of peaceful interaction upon which society rests.

In essence, Bourne addressed the moral consequences of war upon a post-war society which had abandoned individualism in favor of "the herd-machinery." He eloquently argued that post-war America would be morally, intellectually, and psychologically impoverished. By this observation, Bourne did not mean that peace time America would struggle under the increased bureaucracy that never seems to roll-back to pre-war levels. Many historians have made this point. Bourne addressed the less tangible, though arguably more significant, costs of war.

For example, post-1918 America would be burdened by intellectuals who had "forgotten that the real enemy is War rather than imperial Germany."(13) In converting World War I into a holy war, the intellectual and psychological groundwork was being laid for future instances of what he termed "the sport of the upper class" -- global conflict.

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/articles/warfreem.html

[anaconda]

History is written by the winners (aka Soviets & Americans).

[idiom]

Naturally, it would be naïve to deny that the British and American armies had bad apples who carried out such atrocities. But these figures are huge, and would suggest that rape was almost as unexceptional as it was in the Red Army.

Ah American Exceptionalism, here expressed as the belief that teenagers given three weeks training, then subjected to years of shelling, suffering PTSD and other massive psychological trauma will refrain from what other humans will do under the same circumstances, by magic.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I don't doubt it. The Allies were the first to bomb civilian, but the Blitz is what's remembered. The Germans, Japanese and Italians were evil, but the British, Americans and Russians weren't good (especially not the Russians).

[willwash]

The Red Army Rapes numbered in the millions, not 100k's.

[ctiger2]

RAPE?????
Before or after they burned them alive?



I swear to God, warhawks are the most hypocritical retards on the planet.

FIXED!

[JohnGalt1225]

I wouldn't be surprised. War is hell and there were no "good" sides in WWII, just varying degrees of evil.

[Carlybee]

Which is why women should be heavily armed.

[Ronin Truth]

Which is why women should be heavily armed.

Well the soldiers definitely were.

[MarcusI]

The Red Army Rapes numbered in the millions, not 100k's.

Yes, estimates are around 2 Million raped women in Germany by Soviet Forces alone.

Even freed jewish women became victims. And on the farm of my grandfather they gang-raped the ukrainian (probably forced) laborer, my father and his brothers told me.
(cf. Inge Deutschkron: Ich trug den gelben Stern, Munich 1987, p. 179; Atina Grossmann: A Question of Silence. The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers. In: October, 72 (1995): Berlin 1945: War and Rape „Liberators Take Liberties“, S. 53 f. http://www.jstor.org/stable/778926?s...n_tab_contents )

[MaxPower]

While I appreciate the anti-war sentiments in this thread, I fear many of you did not read/digest the article itself, which accurately points out how ridiculous and factually ungrounded the author's claimed rape statistics are. We can oppose war without giving credence to ideologically-motivated pseudo-history like this.

[amy31416]

While I appreciate the anti-war sentiments in this thread, I fear many of you did not read/digest the article itself, which accurately points out how ridiculous and factually ungrounded the author's claimed rape statistics are. We can oppose war without giving credence to ideologically-motivated pseudo-history like this.

One rape is too many.

That is someone's wife, child, daughter or sister. I don't downplay a murder of a man, and I certainly don't downplay murder and rape of women and children.

[MarcusI]

From as far as I know, Bavarian catholic priests got the order from their bishops conference before the arrival of US troops to document all happenings at war's end and start of occupation in their parish in a diary and send that event documentary to their respective bishop, so that we have a pretty complete account for that big region, as most parts of Bavaria was catholic (only minor parts were protestant) and in every small (catholic) village there was a priest (back then, not anymore). This documantary wasnt meant to be published and it never was, but can be studied now in the archives. My information was that the number Gebhardt calculated was derived from that accounts, calculating that the number of rapes per inhabitant was the same in other parts of Germany as it was in Bavaria, which would make it much more reliable. Ofc statistics on rape can never be precise, but the rough dimension can maybe be determined.
The official number US Army published cannot be considered, as its so highly unlikely that the number was not even only 5 times as high in Germany as in the UK (552 vs 121). In the UK you had a complete functionating state, every possible means to report crime done by US troops, in a allied state. In Germany you had no state at all anymore, nowhere to report crime than to the institution of the evildoer (US Army), and soldiers were in occupied enemy territory.

[Ronin Truth]

While I appreciate the anti-war sentiments in this thread, I fear many of you did not read/digest the article itself, which accurately points out how ridiculous and factually ungrounded the author's claimed rape statistics are. We can oppose war without giving credence to ideologically-motivated pseudo-history like this.

Any ideology motivating your pseudo-history perspective?

[thoughtomator]

According to the late Bob LeFevre, only about 5% of mankind is civilized.

Why such an optimistic estimate? I'd be shocked if it was more than 1%.

[Ronin Truth]

Why such an optimistic estimate? I'd be shocked if it was more than 1%.

Bob did his research and was pretty careful with his estimates. But he died about 30 years ago. So perhaps the percentage has fallen significantly since then.

[otherone]

One rape is too many.

That is someone's wife, child, daughter or sister. I don't downplay a murder of a man, and I certainly don't downplay murder and rape of women and children.

AGREED.
In addition, one DEATH is too many.

[timosman]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...re-mostly-sil/

More military men than women are sexually abused in the ranks each year, a Pentagon survey shows, highlighting the underreporting of male-on-male assaults.

When the Defense Department released the results of its anonymous sexual abuse survey this month and concluded that 26,000 service members were victims in fiscal 2012, which ended Sept. 30, an automatic assumption was that most were women. But roughly 14,000 of the victims were male and 12,000 female, according to a scientific survey sample produced by the Pentagon.

The statistics show that, as Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel begins a campaign to stamp out “unwanted sexual contact,” there are two sets of victims that must be addressed.

[dannno]

While I appreciate the anti-war sentiments in this thread, I fear many of you did not read/digest the article itself, which accurately points out how ridiculous and factually ungrounded the author's claimed rape statistics are. We can oppose war without giving credence to ideologically-motivated pseudo-history like this.

Well, somebody was doing the raping.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

No surprise. Raping, pillaging, and other cruelties beyond reason happen in every war. War is the ultimate act of unreasoning.

It is simply not possible to have a war without the vast ruin of innocents everywhere in its path. Yet another reason to avoid it except as a last resort to save your own community from invasion.

I have heard similar numbers before but its not that very hard to believe. You have a bunch of people who have been fighting and killing the husbands, brothers and fathers of these women. They have lost a lot of men and after their victory, they happen to come upon whole cities and communities where there are no men to defend them.

Horny men seeking vengeance for the dead of their brothers and damaged by war, that is a recipe for disaster. Rape will happen and lots of it.

This^^^

Rapes have almost been an inescapable part of wars, the only question really is of prevalence.

Which is why women should be heavily armed.

Totally agree but unfortunately, most women fully support government disarming populations. It's really weird that leftist feminists, who say they don't want women to be dependent on men for anything, including safety, frequently oppose gun-rights.