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
Good news everyone! The Boards.ie Subscription service is live. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Do you trust this set of statistics or not and why ?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Don't know - not sure
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I thought repeating questions was something that you did not like



    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70810816&postcount=29

    This is really just your way of trying to not answer a question. It is clear that when you say this part in red :
    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 ?
    You are simply making assumptions, and that you in fact have as little information about the origin of the figures as anyone else. You would just rather not say that directly.


  • #33
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    No the Ferguson statistics are unreliable and inconclusive
    Morlar wrote: »
    This is really just your way of trying to not answer a question. It is clear that when you say this part in red :

    You are simply making assumptions, and that you in fact have as little information about the origin of the figures as anyone else. You would just rather not say that directly.

    I cannot hold your hand through this any more Morlar. I have given my answer to your question. I have linked back to that answer when you asked it a second time. So now it does not matter whether you ask the question a third time in red colour, blue colour, green colour, yellow colour, etc. The answer is the same. If you cannot understand the answer at this stage I won't be able to make you see the point. If something is stated in the text on the table such as "percentage of POWs that died", I am not assuming what it means, I am basically repeating the obvious meaning of this.


  • #34
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Don't know - not sure
    It is clear you are basing your comments on assumption and that you are working from the same (non exsistent) level of context as everyone else.


  • #35
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,093 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    A question that should be asked here and hasn't been yet, as far as I can tell, is why you are so eager, Johnnie, to believe (and have others believe) the statistics that Ferguson chose to use in his piece? As I sincerely doubt he did the legwork in gathering the info himself and in all likelihood poached it from somewhere, because it suited him.

    I've been familiar with Ferguson since 2004 and I personally don't consider him to be any kind of authority on the Second World War, he is primarily known for economic works and has delved into a somewhat shallow history of colonial matters. But, he is in no way an author to whom I would rely on for the period in question.


  • #36
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    No the Ferguson statistics are unreliable and inconclusive
    Tony EH wrote: »
    A question that should be asked here and hasn't been yet, as far as I can tell, is why you are so eager, Johnnie, to believe (and have others believe) the statistics that Ferguson chose to use in his piece? As I sincerely doubt he did the legwork in gathering the info himself and in all likelihood poached it from somewhere, because it suited him.

    Hello again Tony. I am not at all eager to believe the statistics, I do accept them as a supplementary guide though with relevence to the thread they are in. I am eager only to look at the subject of the treatment of Soviet POW's (and German POW's on eastern front). It seems to be a subject that is not that well known, most likely due to cold war. I would think that given the Soviet attitude to their own soldiers being POW's that they may have suppressed any information about this subject.
    As I am sure you will know there is a wealth of information about how Japanese treated POW's. As the mortality rate of Soviet POW's in German camps is almost double that of POW's in Japanese camps, I feel it is something worth exploring.

    I guess the irony is that whether or not Fergusons table is accepted is not really relevent to the argument as the high death rate for Soviet POW's is generally accepted.

    feel free to dispute any of this and suggest alternative sources if you can


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Don't know - not sure
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Hello again Tony. I am not at all eager to believe the statistics, ...

    I would disagree with your statement there and here is one example of why :

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70770597&postcount=369
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    And I asked you for your alternative figures, which you were unable and unwilling to give. I am all for listening to peoples opinion, particularly those who differ from my own. It is deplorable however to have people who try and dismiss historical data without proposing anything. On almost every thread on the WWII forum (including this) it would be possible to dismiss a source as out of hand but not propose an alternative. This is the type of rubbish that tends to suppress free expression of opinion on forums such as these. I know I have been forewarned about your agenda on these boards but I don't intend to let that type of underhand noncognitive proposal restrict my opinion, much as that may disapoint you.

    So I would put it to you again, since Fergusons figures have you in a knot- what is your basis for not accepting his figures. I understand that they suggest bad treatment by the Nazi's- to discount his opinion you need to provide information rather than just opinion. Anything other than this would quite simply suggest a pro-Nazi bias (in the face of 2 sources of evidence that suggest 57.5% & 60% mortality rates of soviet POW). I would also be open minded to other inaccuracies if you can attribute them to either the OSprey series or Ferguson as being relevent.


  • #38
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,093 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    But, there hasn't been anyone that has said that the mortality rate of Soviet POWs in German custody was a small percentage. Morlar and others have simply pointed out that they aren't willing to take at face value the "Ferguson" statistics. I think that's fair enough. It certainly doesn't warrant three threads and numerous posts of back and forth material and you do seem to have gotten into a tizzy over whether the stats are taken on board or not.

    Besides, there are many differing accounts on POW mortality rates. For instance, some historians say that the Axis (as a whole9 took around 4.6 mil Soviet POWs, of which 1.8 mil were found alive after the war. That's over 60%. I'm pretty sure I've seen others say the the Axis took in around 6 million Russian POWs and that 2.8 mil died. That's under 47%. A Wiki article suggets that Richard Ovary says that around 14.7% German POWs died in Russian hands, as opposed to Ferguson's 35.8%. Percentages on a subject like this are simply impossible to take at extreme face value and without any caveat. Again, as I said to you ealier, one has to make up his or her own mind.

    Everyone's aware that the percentage is quite high, but there have been reasons outlined to you by several people, including myself, on the relevant thread why this would be the case. These situations often being beyond Germany's ability to control. It's telling that the high mortality rate was confined to a short period of time and that that once the front had stabilised and the Russian winter had subsided that the high death rate subsided too.

    That there was no love lost between the two warring nations is obvious to anyone who has engaged iin even a cursory glance into the subject, but a deeper investigation, as usual, leads to a clearer understanding. But, even with that, it would still be difficult to take statistics, such as the ones in question, to be the be all-end all. Stats are often quite useless without the necessary context.

    At the end of the day, it matters not a jot whether Morlar or anybody else buys into Ferguson's stats. The subject can still be debated without the need for this is to/is not type of arguing, which has gone on for days now.


  • #39
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    No the Ferguson statistics are unreliable and inconclusive
    Morlar wrote: »
    I would disagree with your statement there and here is one example of why :

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70770597&postcount=369

    There is a clear difference between believing a statistic because 1, you take it to be from a reputable source and 2, because you are eager to believe it.


  • #40
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    No the Ferguson statistics are unreliable and inconclusive
    Tony EH wrote: »
    But, there hasn't been anyone that has said that the mortality rate of Soviet POWs in German custody was a small percentage. Morlar and others have simply pointed out that they aren't willing to take at face value the "Ferguson" statistics. I think that's fair enough. It certainly doesn't warrant three threads and numerous posts of back and forth material and you do seem to have gotten into a tizzy over whether the stats are taken on board or not..

    Having presented the figures as supplementary to the discussion as opposed to being the discussion, I certainly agree with you that they don't warrant discussion over multiple threads. I did feel that I needed to defend them particularly when they were presented in a poll thread that did not present them from a neutral point of view (as I outlined). I have tryed on several occasions to move the POW thread away from the posts about the figures as they are not a sticking point in that discussion as the high mortality rate is generally accepted.
    Tony EH wrote: »

    That there was no love lost between the two warring nations is obvious to anyone who has engaged iin even a cursory glance into the subject, but a deeper investigation, as usual, leads to a clearer understanding. But, even with that, it would still be difficult to take statistics, such as the ones in question, to be the be all-end all. Stats are often quite useless without the necessary context.

    At the end of the day, it matters not a jot whether Morlar or anybody else buys into Ferguson's stats. The subject can still be debated without the need for this is to/is not type of arguing, which has gone on for days now.
    Agree 100%


Advertisement