OK, I'm done reading. I agree it is an excellent article. Unfortunately I see it rather as an essay than a research article. It has lots of points and findings and quotes, but, as my brain works, it is difficult for me to incorporate it here. At least now I know what it says and I may be a helper/double-checker if it will be cited. Now, what I found of  note (and not forgotten yet:-) (bits and pieces on random order): 
 *It seems to be critical of the documentary of Helke Sander. She does not question the facts from the d'tary, but rather its presentation: 
 **She does not deny neither the fact thew Germen women were victims, nor questions the numberr 
 **She counter-agrues Sander's claim that she was "breaking the silence" 
 **she objects to the role the d'tary, by its way of presentation, plays in presenting Germany and its Volk as victims rather than perpetrators (NB: not victims of Soviets, but victims of Reich ; in fact, she notes, raped German women were victims of the collapse of the Nazi Reich rather than of Nazism per se) 
 **the language of d'tary reinforces the Nazi propaganda myth about barbaric Slav/Mongol hordes (e.g., an interview with a "well-bred, civilized" Russian veteran  shows his back, but the one ranting about sexual exploits looks exactly as if from Nazi reels about barbaric Russian POW) 
 **in her opinion the d'tary pretends to put forth the idea that the fate of women is common in all wars, but in a kinda hypocritical way 
 *She notes the fact that the rapes were expected: both predicted by Nazi propaganda as a way to reinforce the morale of the defense and by unofficial decriminalization of non-medial and non-eugenic abortions 
 *the guilt of Russians seems to be reinforced by their "cultural inferiority" (russians did rape, while Americans had chocolate; as if somehow coercion of a deprived woman by a chocolate is somehow morally more superior than direct rape) 
 *The fact that in rape reports Russians all described as Asian/Mongol is explained by the imprinted ideas of both "Arian purity" and Nazi propaganda stereotypes; in particular, Americans rapists were mostly described as Negroes and French as Moroccans 
 *At the same time raper reports invariably included socio-economic reasons, which Grossmann explains as reminiscences of the times of Weimar Republic 
 *As I mentioned, she writes the d'tary did not "break the silence". Immediately post-WWII there was plenty of memoir, and in these rape  was a mundane yet another reality of suffering: destroyed houses, hunger, plunder, etc., a nonnotable part of the "consumer basket", so to say. Of course, in most horrendous cases women committed suicide, but at the same time, at city water pumps women exchanged jokes about stupid Russisch and how to dupe them or about sentimental Russisch easily fascinated by children, etc.   Only in  modern discourse of "higher civilization" rape was singled out. 
 *By German women, Russians were generally classified in two polarized groups, drunk barbarians and cultivated officers (whose consensual sex was sought for as a protection from rape), while Americans were commonly described as primitive and vulgar. 
 *The narrative of German women in a crooked way absolved Russians of  personal guilt: surely one cannot expect different behavior from these drunk primitive barbarians, and allowed women "to distance  from the horror of their own experience" and to "maintain the conviction of their own superiority". 
 *After the postwar mess was a bit cleaned up, the talk about Russian rapes was muted. This has an evident explanation in East Germany, but the same happened in the West, despite the fact that it could have been a handy Cold War propaganda tool 
 *Still the rape story lived on, both in personal communication, and numerously in novel and film, as well as in gov't documents. 
 Well, that's what I memorized.  - üser:Altenmann