Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
German treatment of POW's
Options
Comments
-
Just because you've dragged something from a book or online that suits your particular, present, POV doesn't doesn’t necessarily mean it's been "properly sourced" though. You're simply parroting information that you like.
.
I made a point.
You said "Says who? Frankly, I don't believe it."
I replied to your question by telling you who had said it. Now you don't like me replying directly to your question. You also don't like me using historical source material to back up my points- the alternative is to spout unsubstantiated rubbish with no source. I am not trying to be unfair but I really don't know how you expect me to make a point if I cannot use a document that as you put it" suits your particular, present, POV". I am hardly going to back up my opinion with information that suits your argument- that would be nonsensical.There may be other sources that differ wildly. The secret is in corroborating various pieces of information and making your own mind up. Which, at the end of the day, is really all we have when studying history. Especially the history of the Second World War.
.
Agree 100%, hence your input is appreciated, particularly as it diverges from my own. If we agreed on this subject the discussion would be dull.
I did sayWe're talking about a considerable number of people here, not just a select few and all encompassing statements like "German POWs were better fed than X" doesn't really mean all that much.
Perhaps some quarters were better fed at certain stages. Perhaps there are documents stating that POWs were to receive X amount of food etc, but the reality on the ground may have been very different, who knows. In my experience, the "paperwork" of WWII rarely stacked up to the reality.
But the blanket statement remains rather silly, no matter who it's from.
.
In fact it was you who implied that some of them were better off in captivity than there families back home. Perhaps that "does'nt really mean all that much", also?I don't in any way suggest that any of these prisoners had it 'rosy'.
The conditions very much varied from place to place. This is what the previously posted figures show starkly in terms of mortality rates dependent on what country help you in captivity. Do you accept the Mortality rates quoted (post 19) as relevent to the discussion? I would prefer to see them as neutral in the discussion rather than seeing them as supporting one side or the other.
I would be interested if you had any information on the guy who was held in Soviet labour camp. It may not be particularly relevent but even anecdotal first hand history of that manner would be fascinating.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »I made a point.
You said "Says who? Frankly, I don't believe it."
I replied to your question by telling you who had said it. Now you don't like me replying directly to your question. You also don't like me using historical source material to back up my points- the alternative is to spout unsubstantiated rubbish with no source. I am not trying to be unfair but I really don't know how you expect me to make a point if I cannot use a document that as you put it" suits your particular, present, POV". I am hardly going to back up my opinion with information that suits your argument- that would be nonsensical.
The "says who" is not really a question asking for a quote from a book though. It was more of question asking where this opinion has sprung from. BTW, it certainly isn't the first time I've heard it and it is also stated by various people as fact with little to nothing solid to back it up and that is something we are all guilty of. However, the statement in and of itself is rather meaningless. It's a "you never had it so good" sort of catchphrase, akin to "Total employment" and such like. These statements tend to lose their shine and umph, when the facts behind the statement are studied closer.
Also, I'm not disliking your replies at all. If that's the impression your getting then we'll have to put it down to the limitations of the medium in which we are communicating. Not to wax to lyrical, but text is somewhat dead and easily misunderstood.
But, you'll have to forgive me if I say that my point still stands, in that the student of history really does have to go out of their way to find information that doesn't suit their own opinion. That is the way to a better and more rounded view. The key is knowing that you know, in fact, very little in the grand scheme of things and to allow yourself an open mind to items which might not coincide with the present opinion one possesses at the time. I've been studying the wars of the first half of the 20th Century for 25 years now and have had numerous pre-conceptions, conceptions, opinions, political and philosophical bubbles rearranged, changed and destroyed many times over and can safely say that nothing is as it appears on the surface. Just when I thought that I had something boxed off, other evidence and opinion comes my way and forces me to raise more questions on the subject. Which, in the end is a good thing, otherwise I would have been bored by it all a long time ago. Although, one thing I truly do dislike is the political nature with which the second world war is discussed. It tends to stifle any kind of true debate and discussion.jonniebgood1 wrote: »The conditions very much varied from place to place. This is what the previously posted figures show starkly in terms of mortality rates dependent on what country help you in captivity. Do you accept the Mortality rates quoted (post 19) as relevent to the discussion? I would prefer to see them as neutral in the discussion rather than seeing them as supporting one side or the other.
Not only that, but conditions varied regarding the same nation's attitude to POWs from a single nation. Some Russian POWs were well treated on occasion by the Germans. Some German POWs were well treated by their Russian captors. Nothing is black and white. As far as the mortality rates are concerned and as I already have stated, I will only accept them as merely one set of stats and that's if it includes mortality rate after the war ended. Because, German POWs didn't stop dying in captivity for years after the actual war ended. So, again, if the stats don't include that, then they just aren't accurate at all, let alone neutral.jonniebgood1 wrote: »I would be interested if you had any information on the guy who was held in Soviet labour camp. It may not be particularly relevent but even anecdotal first hand history of that manner would be fascinating.
Well, I am loath to go into too much detail. The man and his wife are still alive and I'm sure would probably not be too happy about their being talked about on a forum. But, they are grandparents of a friend of mine and I have a few occasions where I could talk to them personally about their experiences during the war. My own father was with the Royal Engineers during the war and I was interested in what the RAD did and where his war took him, as it were. He was involved in building the West Wall in the early years, 38-39. He worked on the U-Boat bunkers in the West Coast of France. He was actually a temp driver for Gunther Prien for a while too. He was eventually sent to Russia as the need for Pioneer work there overwhelmed the number of men. His anecdotes about Russia were the salt of the conversation though. His details brought new meaning to the German experience there. They weren't amazing war stories or anything just everyday things. Such as the Russian civilians and POWs that worked with his unit. He said that the POWs would brew this special "vodka" from potatoes that was lethal! But great for keeping out the -30 degree cold. The "Hiwis" (Russian volunteers) were absolutely necessary to survival in the winter as the German lads hadn't a clue. Even going for a pee was potentially a lethal activity as in bad weather you couldn't see 2 feet in front of you! He was caught in late 43 (I think), when the truck (a British Leyland!) he was driving was stopped by a Russian squad with tanks. He said that he and his mate sat there in the cab wondering whether to make a break for it or not. They decided to and his friend was shot and he hid out for a short while until caught himself. The next ten years was spent in Russia and he didn't get home to his wife until 1954 or so. The German POWs were used as slave labour, put tasks on various things. One such thing was building roads. He said they used seashells and crushed them in with a sticky bitumen like material which hardened with great strength. They constructed these all over Southern Russia.
His view of the Russians was that they were no different to anybody else. In fact there were moments of great kindness shown to the German POWs by the civilians at times. On one occasion, villagers formed a small sort of protest outside a camp where the POWs were kept and the Russian soldiers threatened to fire on them if they didn't go away. A remarkable tale considering the usual view of Russia.
He view the Russian solder as generally ok, but despised their officers. Especially the political classes.
Anyway, he arrived home, a mere skeleton and was reunited with his wife who until that day believed he was dead. His wife too had her own stories to tell. She was in the Luftwaffe and used to plot the course of British bombers. After the war she was held in a POW camp (US, I believe) and said she probably only got out alive because a British officer wanted her as a translator. Her English was superb and still is.
Both had terribly interesting lives, their stories were riveting and they were very charming on top of it all. All in all though, I got the impression that they don't often talk about the war (like most Germans) and that they would rather have led a more boring life.0 -
I agree with you in this- hence trying to find out more information about this threads subject. It is a part of the WWII that is dispropotionally known about given the scale of losses on both sides.
But, you'll have to forgive me if I say that my point still stands, in that the student of history really does have to go out of their way to find information that doesn't suit their own opinion. That is the way to a better and more rounded view. The key is knowing that you know, in fact, very little in the grand scheme of things and to allow yourself an open mind to items which might not coincide with the present opinion one possesses at the time. I've been studying the wars of the first half of the 20th Century for 25 years now and have had numerous pre-conceptions, conceptions, opinions, political and philosophical bubbles rearranged, changed and destroyed many times over and can safely say that nothing is as it appears on the surface. Just when I thought that I had something boxed off, other evidence and opinion comes my way and forces me to raise more questions on the subject. Which, in the end is a good thing, otherwise I would have been bored by it all a long time ago. Although, one thing I truly do dislike is the political nature with which the second world war is discussed. It tends to stifle any kind of true debate and discussion.
The RAD detail is very interesting- shows a view that would not be recognised in the general reporting of POW experiences.0 -
I would be expect anyone with a reasonable, ideologically neutral approach to the study of WW2 history to be wary of any set of statistics which introduced simplistic, definitive percentages as those from ANY theatre of the War without providing for example a margin of error, without referring to any of the information these simplistic figures are based on, what information was included what was excluded and why and so on. It would be odd from a neutral standpoint to simply accept them at face value with no qualification or context. Also I have never heard of Ferguson, he is not an acknowledged WW2 Historian with an indepth track record on this field of historiography, not least from the WW2 Barbarossa perspective (apparently he has written on the rothschilds/is working on kissingers biography, also a WW1 book to his credit).
With regard to your constant questioning of these figures I have got similar figures from the Osprey series book on the Ostfront Hitlers war on Russia 1941-45. extract:
page 11.
The figures are broadly speaking in line with that of Ferguson, i.e. 3 million deaths from 5 million POW's would equal 60%, I presume Fergusons calculations were more extensive to allow him to pinpoint 57.5%.
I will try to find a second source to corroberate Fergusons estimate of German POW deaths in Soviet camps as that is also relevent to this discussion.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »With regard to your constant questioning of these figures I have got similar figures from the Osprey series book on the Ostfront Hitlers war on Russia 1941-45. extract:page 11.
The figures are broadly speaking in line with that of Ferguson, i.e. 3 million deaths from 5 million POW's would equal 60%, I presume Fergusons calculations were more extensive to allow him to pinpoint 57.5%.
I will try to find a second source to corroberate Fergusons estimate of German POW deaths in Soviet camps as that is also relevent to this discussion.
The question is the source and veracity of the original study that the percentage figure originates from.
In the case of Ferguson he is the source. Also you are neglecting the fact that Ferguson's figures are (allegedly) the global definitive, not limited to any particular theatre. Also as has been mentioned multiple times which you keep ignoring, the ferguson ones are lacking any kind of context or supplementary information on how they were arrived at.0 -
Advertisement
-
The question is the source and veracity of the original study that the percentage figure originates from.
In the case of Ferguson he is the source. Also you are neglecting the fact that Ferguson's figures are (allegedly) the global definitive, not limited to any particular theatre. Also as has been mentioned multiple times which you keep ignoring, the ferguson ones are lacking any kind of context or supplementary information on how they were arrived at.
Not withstanding that you have in no way discredited Fergusons ability or record in this regard I wonder/ point out:
1. Do you accept that if Fergusons figures are verified by alternative sources that it verifies their accuracy? i.e. do you just refuse to accept statistics as an important and fundamental way of analysing POW treatment?
2. They are mortality rates of POW in WWII: the context is the disregard for human life in POW camps in WWII. The calculation is based on the number of prisoners who died after being taken in charge of an enemy as opposed to being released back after hostilities end, be it immediately or in 1953 or 55. This is obvious points. Why don't you clarify the doubts you have about the figures rather than this ridiculous pandering behind context or supplementary information. Perhaps if you can do this honestly we could at least agree to disagree on the matter.
3. The figures show a global figure- You are welcome to dispute any of them if you can substantiate your issue. I don't accept your view as holding much weight therefore I must insist on you backing any view up with a source which I can review. (similarily I would'nt expect you to take my word for these figures, hence I defer to figures of a highly rated historian).0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Not withstanding that you have in no way discredited Fergusons ability or record in this regard I wonder/ point out:
1. Do you accept that if Fergusons figures are verified by alternative sources that it verifies their accuracy? i.e. do you just refuse to accept statistics as an important and fundamental way of analysing POW treatment?
2. They are mortality rates of POW in WWII: the context is the disregard for human life in POW camps in WWII. The calculation is based on the number of prisoners who died after being taken in charge of an enemy as opposed to being released back after hostilities end, be it immediately or in 1953 or 55. This is obvious points. Why don't you clarify the doubts you have about the figures rather than this ridiculous pandering behind context or supplementary information. Perhaps if you can do this honestly we could at least agree to disagree on the matter.
3. The figures show a global figure- You are welcome to dispute any of them if you can substantiate your issue. I don't accept your view as holding much weight therefore I must insist on you backing any view up with a source which I can review. (similarily I would'nt expect you to take my word for these figures, hence I defer to figures of a highly rated historian).
(answered in the correct thread).
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70778596&postcount=210 -
As per a previous post no. 65, see information regarding German POW mortality in Soviet camps. The figures come from Barbarossa by Bergstrom and are quoted as follows
from http://mitchtemppiece.blogspot.com/2008/09/deaths-in-soviet-union.html Note- These figures are also in line with Fergusons (as expected).Here are numbers regarding German POWs from recent Russian statistics:
"According to German figures, between 35 and 37 per cent of the 3,155,000 German soldiers in Soviet captivity perished. A recent Russian statistical count gives a slightly different picture: between 1941 and 1945, a total of 3,576,300 Wehrmacht and SS soldiers were captured by the Soviets. Of this total, 551,500 were immediately released in May 1945, and the remainder were sent to be interned. A total of 220,000 Soviet citizens in Wehrmacht service and 14,100 Germans branded as war criminals were sent to special NKVD camps, and another 57,000 men died during transportation to POW camps. Out of a total of 2,733,739 Wehrmacht soldiers held in Soviet POW camps, 381,067 died, and 2,352,672 were repatriated to Germany." "Barbarossa" by Christer Bergstrom pg. 120.
Site also has reference to Soviet filtration camps which were previously queried.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »As per a previous post, see information regarding German POW mortality in Soviet camps. The figures come from Beevors book on stalingrad and are quoted as follows
from http://mitchtemppiece.blogspot.com/2008/09/deaths-in-soviet-union.html Note- These figures are also in line with Fergusons (as expected).
Site also has reference to Soviet filtration camps which were previously queried.
When you say 'as per a previous post' - can you confirm which previous post ? This topic is spread across at least 3 threads in the ww2 forum and also it gets a mention in the history and heritage one so it might help to specify which post you are responding to.
The quote above is from a blog, the author of the blog appears to give a different source for the figures than you do (though it is unlikely that the author in question is the actual source of the study) :
Here are numbers regarding German POWs from recent Russian statistics:
"According to German figures, between 35 and 37 per cent of the 3,155,000 German soldiers in Soviet captivity perished. A recent Russian statistical count gives a slightly different picture: between 1941 and 1945, a total of 3,576,300 Wehrmacht and SS soldiers were captured by the Soviets. Of this total, 551,500 were immediately released in May 1945, and the remainder were sent to be interned. A total of 220,000 Soviet citizens in Wehrmacht service and 14,100 Germans branded as war criminals were sent to special NKVD camps, and another 57,000 men died during transportation to POW camps. Out of a total of 2,733,739 Wehrmacht soldiers held in Soviet POW camps, 381,067 died, and 2,352,672 were repatriated to Germany." "Barbarossa" by Christer Bergstrom pg. 120.
It was brought to my attention that in my reviews I don't always provide the relevant information in my reviews when I criticize an author's work. This might happen for two reasons, either I'm simply too lazy to do the work (happens to us all) or I've already provided the information, sources, facts, figures, etc, in another review. Thus, I decided that I'll make separate posts with relevant information which I often find missing or misinterpreted from many author's works. First, the Soviet POW situation, what happened to them after the war:
I would make the point that the original study and the methods used are the important factor and not which authors repeat which variation of them. The issue is the source of the statistics, and in the blog you link it references a book, there is no mention of the source for the statistics.0 -
I would make the point that the original study and the methods used are the important factor and not which authors repeat which variation of them. The issue is the source of the statistics, and in the blog you link it references a book, there is no mention of the source for the statistics.
I think you are avoiding the issue Morlar. Much as you hide behind the amazing lack of proof that you seem to see, the issue is quite clearly the death rates of Soviet POW. Do you have anything constructive to add to this or do you still think approaching 60% of prisoners taken died because of the Soviets being unhealthy as you stated on 1st page (post 5) of this thread?0 -
Advertisement
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »I think you are avoiding the issue Morlar. Much as you hide behind the amazing lack of proof that you seem to see, ...
Think about this for a second. The Irish famine lasted approx 3-4 yrs and saw the deaths of approximately one million people in a country the size of Ireland. These figures here purport to cover an area from Scotland to North Africa, from Canda and the United States to the back end of Russia/Mongolia with basically everything in between, not forgetting Australia and prison camps all over the asia pacific theatre of war. Not for 3 years but from 1939 through - approx 1955, through multiple political regimes and changes of leadership/policy involving multiple, possibly tens of millions of pow's from all over the planet many of whom would have scattered to the winds on release. The logistics of producing a single definitive set of statistics on the mortality rates of all of those are staggering. So, deciding not to take a wikipedia jpeg which comes with zero context and zero supplementary information as to how it was produced, deciding not to take that jpeg on faith as being reliable is not 'hiding' behind or 'avoiding' anything.0 -
Think about this for a second. The Irish famine lasted approx 3-4 yrs and saw the deaths of approximately one million people in a country the size of Ireland. These figures here purport to cover an area from Scotland to North Africa, from Canda and the United States to the back end of Russia/Mongolia with basically everything in between, not forgetting Australia and prison camps all over the asia pacific theatre of war. Not for 3 years but from 1939 through - approx 1955, through multiple political regimes and changes of leadership/policy involving multiple, possibly tens of millions of pow's from all over the planet many of whom would have scattered to the winds on release. The logistics of producing a single definitive set of statistics on the mortality rates of all of those are staggering. So, deciding not to take a wikipedia jpeg which comes with zero context and zero supplementary information as to how it was produced, deciding not to take that jpeg on faith as being reliable is not 'hiding' behind or 'avoiding' anything.
Morlar , do you know the mortality rates ?0 -
Morlar , do you know the mortality rates ?
Do I know the mortality rates of the Irish famine ? Not definitively, no. I have heard estimates which have gone up and down over the years, (as this is an event which is not ring-fenced in history this is not unusual).
I have answered your question -why not answer one of mine.
Would you trust a jpeg on wikipedia which came (with zero context & zero supplementary information), would you trust that jpeg as the definitive truth on the mortality rates of the Irish famine ? Even if it did not reference a single detail of the study behind it - just literally an authors name and some percentages - would You find that credible on it's own ?
Yes or no?
Bear in mind the vastly more complex and far reaching complications in WW2 global pow rates - why would they which are more complex be any more credible in the form of a jpeg and an authors name ?0 -
I have answered your question -why not answer one of mine.
Would you trust a jpeg on wikipedia which came (with zero context & zero supplementary information),
The irony of you actually answering a question is not lost.
The context of Fergusons figures is clear although you try to ignore it. The supplementary information is that the comilation of these was carried out by a competent historian.
Additional supplementary information is here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70751466&postcount=65
and some more supplementary information is here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70323126&postcount=5
While your in the mood for answering questions could you explain why you are trying to avoid the subject and issue of this thread by diverting attention to a meaningless discussion about figures that after much discussion have not been shown in any way to be false?0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »The irony of you actually answering a question is not lost.
Where is the link to the post, where you previously asked me a question, which I did not answer ?
It is possible that you asked a question which was lost in the shuffle of you repeatedly asking the same question over and over and over. I am referring to the question which I have answered now about 15-20 times, that is your question of 'why will you not accept the ferguson figures?'jonniebgood1 wrote: »explain why you are trying to avoid the subject and issue of this thread by diverting attention to a meaningless discussion about figures that after much discussion have not been shown in any way to be false?
I am not avoiding any subject whatsoever, nor am I avoiding answering questions. Yet again you make allegations and insinuations rather than express a valid point.
You say I have diverted attention to a 'meaningless discussion about figures', yet I didn't. You brought the figures up - I simply do not agree with your assertion that that particular set of figures are credible.
Let's not forget I started a dedicated thread about this subject rather than have threads constantly derailed on this dead end aspect of the discussion which you seem to place so much importance in. Not me.
Also why not respond to some of the points made in your direction ? For example this one :
One person or more choosing NOT to accept the ferguson figures in their current format as being definitive, does not make discussion of this subject impossible.
So on the one hand you allege that I am diverting this thread into a meaningless discussion on figures, while at the same time you allege that it is impossible to discuss this topic while there is a lack of concensus on the validity of one set of statistics.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70807159&postcount=26
All that has happened on this (the pow thread), the Double standards thread and the dedicated thread on 'do you trust these statistics' is that I have made my point on why I do not share your absolute faith in one set of statistics. That is the majority view so far (I am including the anonymous poster who agrees with you). That is all that has happened. That, and you over-reacting at various intervals to allege a pro-nazi bias on the part of those who do not share your belief in the ferg-stats.
You are the person who made the statistics into a central theme of the pow thread - not me.
I simply told you that I do not accept the figures are entirely definitive/credible in their current format, (that is to say lacking context and supplementary information on how these results were arrived at).
I have also already pointed out what is is meant by 'context and supplementary information' on how the study was completed and how the figures were arrived at etc, so you now, choosing to ignore the previous post clarifying that in order to respond that the context and supplementary information are already present is not convincing anyone.0 -
Do I know the mortality rates of the Irish famine ? Not definitively, no. I have heard estimates which have gone up and down over the years, (as this is an event which is not ring-fenced in history this is not unusual).
I have answered your question -why not answer one of mine.
Would you trust a jpeg on wikipedia which came (with zero context & zero supplementary information), would you trust that jpeg as the definitive truth on the mortality rates of the Irish famine ? Even if it did not reference a single detail of the study behind it - just literally an authors name and some percentages - would You find that credible on it's own ?
Yes or no?
Bear in mind the vastly more complex and far reaching complications in WW2 global pow rates - why would they which are more complex be any more credible in the form of a jpeg and an authors name ?
Hello Morlar, I will answer any question you care to put to me, with the proviso that I would not be at all as knowledgeable as you or johnnniebegood or some of the other posters on here.
Perhaps I did not make my previous post very clear , but my question was in relation to WW 2 rather than the Irish famine.
Now in answer to your question. I would accept nothing at face value from wikipedia.
Now to anticipate your supplementary question .In general, would I accept a jpeg on wikipedia without context and only the authors name as substantiation. Answer -No
Next Question - Would I dismiss it out of hand ? Answer -No. I would use it as a lead in to further investigate the point or points being made.
My first port of call would be to verify that the historian quoted did actually say or write the item quoted.
Having verified that this was so, my next actions would depend on the peer credibility of the historian quoted.
If the historian was of recognised international stature I would be happy to accept it at that unless given reason otherwise.
Now in answer to specifics , would I trust Niall Ferguson of Oxford, Harvard and the LSE and advisory fellow of the Barsanti Military History Centre, University N.Texas on this specific issue and without knowing how such figures were compiled ?
Answer -yes ,and without too much question.
Why would I do so ? Well if not ,then we would be constantly re-inventing the wheel in every factual book published and every book would be of interminable length with notes alone.
With a historian of Ferguson's stature I would accept any of his facts at face value, his interpretation less so, as all authors have their particular bias. His bias funnily enough is usually pro-German but not in a pronounced way. On his ability to comment on WW2 - again no question he has that ability and credibility.
And he would very quickly be late of Oxford, Havard, LSE and Texas if he ever abused that credibility.0 -
Where is the link to the post, where you previously asked me a question, which I did not answer ?
.
Post 67 "Why don't you clarify the doubts you have about the figures rather than this ridiculous pandering behind context or supplementary information. Perhaps if you can do this honestly we could at least agree to disagree on the matter."
In simple terms which particular part of the table do you not accept (In the context of the threads subject)?0 -
Hello Morlar, I will answer any question you care to put to me, with the proviso that I would not be at all as knowledgeable as you or johnnniebegood or some of the other posters on here.
Perhaps I did not make my previous post very clear , but my question was in relation to WW 2 rather than the Irish famine.
Here was the exact question you asked :Morlar , do you know the mortality rates ?
Re WW2 pow mortality rates - no I do not 'know' them, I doubt anyone will ever 'know' them, all we will ever have are estimates. Is the point you are aiming to make that I can not find the ferg-stats lacking credibility without providing an alternate version ? If so that point has already been made repeatedly and unsuccessfully by another poster.
Agreed.Now in answer to your question. I would accept nothing at face value from wikipedia.
Agreed.Now to anticipate your supplementary question .In general, would I accept a jpeg on wikipedia without context and only the authors name as substantiation. Answer -NoNext Question - Would I dismiss it out of hand ? Answer -No. I would use it as a lead in to further investigate the point or points being made.
Does this mean you would believe them until something better came along ? If so - not agreed.
I would not accept them until I had reason to. I might accept them if I knew more about how they were compiled, the methods used, the archives sourced, the criteria and so on and on and on.
The most key statistics of WW2 to my mind are :
Civilian dead
Combatant dead
POW dead.
Off the top of my head those are the most vital and the ones & I would want to see something more than a jpeg to come to a conclusion on.
If it were 'percentage of german tanks destroyed on Wolchow 1943' I would not be as stringent as those statistics are less important, from a moral perspective.My first port of call would be to verify that the historian quoted did actually say or write the item quoted.
Agreed, In this case I believe they are from a magazine article authored by Ferguson - though I will agree that even at this point in the discussion it is not conclusive that Ferguson is the author, or in any way responsible, for ANY kind of original, comprehensive, authoritative study.
All we have for that is a wiki footnote to an article thus far NO ONE on any side of this discussion has even claimed to have read.Having verified that this was so, my next actions would depend on the peer credibility of the historian quoted.
Wrong (in my view). It would not depend on the peer credibility of the historian quoted, it would depend on the credibility of the methods behind the Study in which the statistics originate. That is key.If the historian was of recognised international stature I would be happy to accept it at that unless given reason otherwise.
We can agree to disagree on that. The study is the thing, the methods used, and so on and so on.Now in answer to specifics , would I trust Niall Ferguson of Oxford, Harvard and the LSE and advisory fellow of the Barsanti Military History Centre, University N.Texas on this specific issue and without knowing how such figures were compiled ?
Answer -yes ,and without too much question.
In effect what this would mean in this case is that you would be taking a jpeg from wikipedia which puports to be the worlds first global definitive POW mortality rates, all with zero context and zero supplementary information as authoritative.
I disagree with you on this for the reasons I have already provided across this and multiple other threads.Why would I do so ? Well if not ,then we would be constantly re-inventing the wheel in every factual book published and every book would be of interminable length with notes alone.
This is simply wrong. You are connecting two things which are unconnected. The ferg-stats are a specific case, as mentioned there are some ww2 stats which are more important than others. You do not need to apply the same stringent level of criteria to every single set of statistics as if somehow every single statistic was equally morally important. You could choose to do so if you wish but in general my view would be that there is simply no need. So there is no 're-inventing of the wheel' required to not have faith in a context-less wiki-jpeg.With a historian of Ferguson's stature I would accept any of his facts at face value,
Define fact ?
A statistic which has been arrived at in a way in which you have zero visibility upon ? It is not safe to presume that that is a fact.
Not entirely sure of the relevance of this.his interpretation less so, as all authors have their particular bias.His bias funnily enough is usually pro-German but not in a pronounced way.
I would not agree or disagree with this - forgive me for not taking your word for that. I have read that his bias is pro british empire but not relevant - the methods behind the study would be key.On his ability to comment on WW2 - again no question he has that ability and credibility.
Everyone has the ability to comment on ww2, he is not a WW2 historian however. I do not accept that he is when he is not.And he would very quickly be late of Oxford, Havard, LSE and Texas if he ever abused that credibility.
Yes you have mentioned at length his academic resume, this does not detract one iota from the fact that beneath all of this is the presumption that it is correct to accept a jpeg on wiki which is presented void of context or detail as to how this study was conducted and how the statistics were arrived at. Seemingly competent / prestigious people are wrong all the time, iot would be a mistake to trust a person who is not an expert in this field on the basis of their reputation as the autor of books on the rothschilds and kissingers of this world to the point where you put critical faculties out of the equation.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Post 67 "Why don't you clarify the doubts you have about the figures
Post 67jonniebgood1 wrote: »Not withstanding that you have in no way discredited Fergusons ability or record in this regard I wonder/ point out:
1. Do you accept that if Fergusons figures are verified by alternative sources that it verifies their accuracy? i.e. do you just refuse to accept statistics as an important and fundamental way of analysing POW treatment?
2. They are mortality rates of POW in WWII: the context is the disregard for human life in POW camps in WWII. The calculation is based on the number of prisoners who died after being taken in charge of an enemy as opposed to being released back after hostilities end, be it immediately or in 1953 or 55. This is obvious points. Why don't you clarify the doubts you have about the figures rather than this ridiculous pandering behind context or supplementary information. Perhaps if you can do this honestly we could at least agree to disagree on the matter.
3. The figures show a global figure- You are welcome to dispute any of them if you can substantiate your issue. I don't accept your view as holding much weight therefore I must insist on you backing any view up with a source which I can review. (similarily I would'nt expect you to take my word for these figures, hence I defer to figures of a highly rated historian).
Answer to post 67(answered in the correct thread).
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70778596&postcount=21This is truly, truly moronic.
I have outlined repeatedly the reasons for not finding a wiki-jpeg, which lacks context or supplementary information, to be credible as a definitive source of the global Pow mortality rates 1939-1955.
1: If the figures are repeated it has no relevance as to whether or not I find the original study behind those figures, and the methods used and circumstances, depth and so on of that original study to be adequate. You will always find some idiot somewhere who mindlessly repeats a statistic with no interest in how it was arrived at.
2 & 3 the information you supply in part 2 & 3 of your 'question', shows a lack of understanding of the word 'context'. When I mentioned the 'context of the study', I mentioned several other things also, I also asked for supplementary information. When I used the word 'context' in this case it would include, are the figures designed to be definitive ? How many researchers worked on this and for how long, who were they and what was their brief, which parameters were used ? Which archives were used, Which factors were counted and discounted and so on. That would be one part of the context and the general supplementary inforamtion which is still unknown, and would be required before making a reasoned conclusion on the accuracy of these figures.
Regarding the parameters used in this ferguson study which you mention, can you confirm where you got this informtion from ?
I am referring to where you say :
The calculation is based on the number of prisoners who died after being taken in charge of an enemy as opposed to being released back after hostilities end, be it immediately or in 1953 or 55. This is obvious points.
Is this based on your assumption ? Or is there anything more to it than that ?
While we are answering each others questions what is your reply to the question there in red ? I have asked you several times now and you refuse to answer.
= = =
Followed by your usual level of insinuation and insult :jonniebgood1 wrote: »rather than this ridiculous pandering behind context or supplementary information. Perhaps if you can do this honestly we could at least agree to disagree on the matter."jonniebgood1 wrote: »In simple terms which particular part of the table do you not accept (In the context of the threads subject)?
It is not a matter of which aprt of the statistics - I do not attach credibility to any or all of them. Neither I nor you have the slightest idea how they were arrived at, you said so yourself in another thread a few hours ago where you said you had contacted the author to find out more about how they were put together :
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70802684&postcount=25jonniebgood1 wrote: »I have attempted to contact the author to seek his clarification on how he put these figures together. He is currently on academic leave and thus I do not expect a reply. If I receive one I will post it.
Here is where I repatedly answer all variations of this question on why I do not accept the ferg-stats/wiki-jpeg as being credible in it's current form :
Thread 1
Do you trust this set of statistics or not and why ? (Multi-page thread 1 2)
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70748982&postcount=1
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70772916&postcount=15
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70778596&postcount=21
Thread 2
German treatment of POW's (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4 5)
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70592676&postcount=33
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70599601&postcount=35
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70601538&postcount=37
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70772658&postcount=66
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70811446&postcount=79
Thread 3
Double standard of EU 'Prevention of revision of the Past' (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page)
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70771878&postcount=370
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70775236&postcount=372
If you continue to ask the same question in various guises which I have already answered repeatedly perhaps you may bring it to a moderator to arbitrate on whether or not I have answered your question ?
It might save you asking the same question and each time utterly ignoring or failing to comprehend the response.0 -
Hello Morlar , I fully accept that we cannot ''know'' anything, but that is straying into the realms of philosophy rather than history. But I am happy to concede that Ferguson's figures can only be estimates , as with the statistics in any conflict.
Now as I have answered your question , can you answer mine , what are your estimates of the figures as opposed to Fergusons ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Now as I have answered your question , can you answer mine , what are your estimates of the figures as opposed to Fergusons ?
I thought I had already answered that in the post which you just replied to :Re WW2 pow mortality rates - no I do not 'know' them, I doubt anyone will ever 'know' them, all we will ever have are estimates. Is the point you are aiming to make that I can not find the ferg-stats lacking credibility without providing an alternate version ? If so that point has already been made repeatedly and unsuccessfully by another poster.
The answer is . . . . I do not know the ww2 pow mortality percentages. This also means that I do not offer estimates or guesstimates on this question.
As stated several times (including the post above) I do not need to provide an alternate set of statistics in order to not find this particular set (which you and jonniebegood support) as being valid or credible.
I believe this post here (by another poster) explains this in a more clear manner than I have why this is so (from the pow stats part of the double standards thread) :
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70779613&postcount=374You see, here is the problem. It's not domain specific, so you don't have to worry about pro- or anti-nazi biases, since the issue is universal. When you make an assertion, like Ferguson is credited with doing, then it is your responsibility to provide the sources and methods you used in generating that assertion. It's not taken as fact until discredited. It's taken as supposition until proven. That's how it works and that's the only way it can work.
If you want to use those figures as evidence for an argument you are making, then it is on you to prove that the figures are correct. As it stands, the figures have no merit to me because the datasets and metadata aren't available. That means that any argument based on them becomes purely supposition.
The basis under which I refuse to accept to his figures is that they are not supported by evidence.0 -
Hello Morlar
Of course you do not need to provide an alternative set of statistics, but why be so adversarial about it ? This is after all a discussion forum , not a court of law.
If you disagree so vehemently with Ferguson why not give a source at least that offers an alternative ? If not an alternative ''estimate'' at least ant alternative viewpoint.
Otherwise it just comes across as ''others propose and you dispose''0 -
Of course you do not need to provide an alternative set of statistics, but why be so adversarial about it ? .........why not give a source at least that offers an alternative ?
I was not aware I was being adversarial, I suppose it could be because you were about to make a point which you were told in advance had already been made unsuccessfully and addressed repeatedly, and in fact which had been addressed in advance in the post above
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70813048&postcount=82
I think there is also the factor that I have discussed with you on other threads in the past where you ignored lengthy posts by automatically clicking on teh 'quote' buttone and completely ignoring all content and points made. That could also be a factor/ the main one though would be that the point you were making had already been addressed and was thus redundant. The one which has been repeated very often about not being required to provide an alternate set of statistics in order to find this set to be not credible.0 -
I was not aware I was being adversarial, I suppose it could be because you were about to make a point which you were told in advance had already been made unsuccessfully and addressed repeatedly, and in fact which had been addressed in advance in the post above
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70813048&postcount=82
I think there is also the factor that I have discussed with you on other threads in the past where you ignored lengthy posts by automatically clicking on teh 'quote' buttone and completely ignoring all content and points made. That could also be a factor/ the main one though would be that the point you were making had already been addressed and was thus redundant. The one which has been repeated very often about not being required to provide an alternate set of statistics in order to find this set to be not credible.
Morlar, I have to confess that I am late to the world of computers and I have yet to master the ability to collate and multipost like you and others, that is the only reason I use the ''quote'' function, I fully accept that my ignorance in working the system is not your problem. But I assure there is no intention in ignoring your posts or any points therein.
But you must admit you do make your posts incredibly complicated. And it would be so must easier if you answered a straight question as I answered the one you put to me. But I realize now you wont
But when all is said and done the only issue at play here is that you dont like Ferguson's statistics. By your own admission you have no alternative to them and you state you dont and wont provide one.So you are not in a position to contradict them
Until we are given a choice Ferguson's must stand.
As for calling for veracity, background ,tables,etc for a historian as eminent as this guy, without you offering any rebuttal whatsoever is just , well, ridiculous.0 -
... you must admit you do make your posts incredibly complicated. And it would be so must easier if you answered a straight question as I answered the one you put to me. But I realize now you wont
This is essentially an insinuation of dishonesty and an vague attack on character and no more.
I have answered every single straight question put to me, sometimes multiple times. Even a few crooked ones too. If you look up at this post :
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70811698&postcount=80
You will see where I have answered that particular single question, in a myriad of slight variations, multiple, multiple times.
My thoughts on this now are more about the mentality of the sort of people who repeatedly ask the SAME question over and over and over and over again, like mindless automotons. Sort of like as if they have no actual point or valid response and so therefore their only ploy is to ignore all replies recieved and simply ask the same question repeatedly in place of any kind of meaningful discussion.But when all is said and done the only issue at play here is that you dont like Ferguson's statistics.
I have explained in plain english multiple times. This has nothing to do with like dislike. The issue with this jpeg on wiki is that there is no context or supplementary information. A jpeg which contains a screenshot of statistics does not come with credibility pre-established. The Global POW mortality rates 1939-1955 are complex, it would be ill advised to simply accept a jpeg chart with no context or additional information on how it was put together.
This has all already been covered to death across 3 threads (as referenced in the link I put in this post to the other post which is a few posts above).your own admission you have no alternative to them and you state you dont and wont provide one.So you are not in a position to contradict them
Incorrect. I do not seek to contradict them and I am not obliged to provide an alternate set of data in order to not agree with this jpeg. I have said repeatedly that I do not accept the wiki jpeg as having credibility to begin with (for the reasons already provided multiple times). I will request that if you are going to ask me questions you read the replies across each of the 3 threads currently going which touch on this issue. Otherwise you are simply wasting my time and I would have to conclude this is a deliberate spoiling tactic.Until we are given a choice Ferguson's must stand.
You are incorrect and this assertion has already been covered. In order to not accept a jpeg on wiki as being the correct, valid, definitive authoratitive, global pow mortality statistics 1939-1955 a person is not obliged to offer an alternative set of data in order to not place credibility on this particular set. This is a simple fact you choose to ignore.As for calling for veracity, background ,tables,etc for a historian as eminent as this guy, without you offering any rebuttal whatsoever is just , well, ridiculous.
Wrong again for the reasons posted above and across the 3 threads which cover this topic at the moment. This is getting tedious between yourself and jonniebgood asking the same questions which have been comprehensively addressed multiple times by multiple people. I think I may ask a moderator to offer an opinion on this as otherwise we could go around in circles indefinitely. Each of the points you raise have already been covered repeatedly. If I didn't know better I would guess that it is a tactic whereby in place of having a point you simply repeat vague insinuations and slurs and then ask the same mindless questions over and over and over again in the hopes of somehow stifling any further meaningful debate on the issue.0 -
Why MUST Fergusons Figures Stand
I gave a Set of Figures which purport to Show that the Jewish Population of the world Increased by som 15,000 people between 1933 andf 1950
all neatly layed out in table form, I can go and get a Jpeg of it if that'd convince you more0 -
Wrong again for the reasons posted above and across the 3 threads which cover this topic at the moment. This is getting tedious between yourself and jonniebgood asking the same questions which have been comprehensively addressed multiple times by multiple people. I think I may ask a moderator to offer an opinion on this as otherwise we could go around in circles indefinitely. Each of the points you raise have already been covered repeatedly. If I didn't know better I would guess that it is a tactic whereby in place of having a point you simply repeat vague insinuations and slurs and then ask the same mindless questions over and over and over again in the hopes of somehow stifling any further meaningful debate on the issue.
Since you so despise repertition I will save you wasting a mods time in the way you have wasted mine
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70772088&postcount=10
Of course you won't accept it in the same way as you won't accept figures that are similar from multiple sources.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70321502&postcount=1
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70751466&postcount=65
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70465701&postcount=19
Why don't you put some of your time into examining why or how the wehrmacht army allowed/ orchestrated this mass murder as opposed to splitting hairs over methods of compiling data? A single post on this would help us move the debate on as there is no chance of us agreeing on this.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Since you so despise repertition I will save you wasting a mods time in the way you have wasted mine
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70772088&postcount=10
Of course you won't accept it in the same way as you won't accept figures that are similar from multiple sources.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70321502&postcount=1
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70751466&postcount=65
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70465701&postcount=19
Why don't you put some of your time into examining why or how the wehrmacht army allowed/ orchestrated this mass murder as opposed to splitting hairs over methods of compiling data? A single post on this would help us move the debate on as there is no chance of us agreeing on this.
As stated one or more blogs or authors repeating a percentage without giving a SOURCE is not very convincing.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70810037&postcount=76It is possible that you asked a question which was lost in the shuffle of you repeatedly asking the same question over and over and over. I am referring to the question which I have answered now about 15-20 times, that is your question of 'why will you not accept the ferguson figures?'
I am not avoiding any subject whatsoever, nor am I avoiding answering questions. Yet again you make allegations and insinuations rather than express a valid point.
You say I have diverted attention to a 'meaningless discussion about figures', yet I didn't. You brought the figures up - I simply do not agree with your assertion that that particular set of figures are credible.
Let's not forget I started a dedicated thread about this subject rather than have threads constantly derailed on this dead end aspect of the discussion which you seem to place so much importance in. Not me.
Also why not respond to some of the points made in your direction ? For example this one :
One person or more choosing NOT to accept the ferguson figures in their current format as being definitive, does not make discussion of this subject impossible.
So on the one hand you allege that I am diverting this thread into a meaningless discussion on figures, while at the same time you allege that it is impossible to discuss this topic while there is a lack of concensus on the validity of one set of statistics.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70807159&postcount=26
All that has happened on this (the pow thread), the Double standards thread and the dedicated thread on 'do you trust these statistics' is that I have made my point on why I do not share your absolute faith in one set of statistics. That is the majority view so far (I am including the anonymous poster who agrees with you). That is all that has happened. That, and you over-reacting at various intervals to allege a pro-nazi bias on the part of those who do not share your belief in the ferg-stats.
You are the person who made the statistics into a central theme of the pow thread - not me.
I simply told you that I do not accept the figures are entirely definitive/credible in their current format, (that is to say lacking context and supplementary information on how these results were arrived at).
I have also already pointed out what is is meant by 'context and supplementary information' on how the study was completed and how the figures were arrived at etc, so you now, choosing to ignore the previous post clarifying that in order to respond that the context and supplementary information are already present is not convincing anyone.0 -
As stated one or more blogs or authors repeating a percentage without giving a SOURCE is not very convincing.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70810037&postcount=76
We differ on this. That is well established at this stage. I would like to move on as there is no gain to anyone in continuing in this manner (both repeating same points)
As per my last post (I will slightly rephrase as it is a genuine question as opposed to an argument)
-
What is your view on how or why the wehrmacht army allowed/ orchestrated this mass murder (regardless of data in Fergusons table this fact is well established)? A single post on this would help us move the debate on. I don't accept that this is down to poor health in any significant way.0 -
Advertisement
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »What is your view on how or why the wehrmacht army allowed/ orchestrated this mass murder ...
It is worth pointing out that this is a loaded question. Your starting point is a conclusion which you are working backwards from in order to try to prove. You are alleging multiple things there, primarily that to some unknown extent that soviet ww2 pows under german control were the subject of an orchestrated, deliberate mass murder.
I don't necessarily subscribe fully to your conclusive starting point. I am not sure why you think I would be inclined to help you try to establish it.
It is also worth pointing out that at one point in this thread you asked for 'what are the factors which contributed to a relatively high soviet mortality rate'.
I responded by suggesting multiple possibilities. One of which was that possibly the soviet pow's entered captivity (from a health perspective) from a poorer starting point in comparison to brit/usa pow's. You dismissed this as a factor on the basis that it came without a source.
So once it became clear that this was your level of debate I decided not to be involved in this thread. It was only where you sought to use flaky non-established statistics as a core for this thread, while refuting information that did not have a 'source' that it became something I responded to once more. Other than clarifying the lack of credibility on the ferg-stats this thread would not be very interesting to me (for the reasons provided).
The notion of mindlessly attaching absolute credibility to a set of context-less stats, then implying that everyone else must agree to this and that if posters disagree with the stats then they need to provide alternate sets . . . So basically your reliance on something which has no established credibility, combined with your tendency to try to undermine replies given honestly (unless they parrot a specific author). . .add those factors together and you have a thread which is not very interesting in my view, and not really worth getting tangled up in if it can at all be avoided.
There are areas around this subject which would interest me but this thread would not be the best place to cover them. I may start a thread on those specific areas which interest me at a later date.0
Advertisement