German treatment of POW's

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

You are overlooking a couple of simple facts ;

I am not demanding you or anyone else take that as ultimate fact in order to proceed with the discussion (unlike when you said I had to accept the fergie stats or provide alternatives).

Nor am I alleging a bias on the part of anyone who does not accept them - (unlike the time you said it was a pro-nazi bias to not accept the ferg stats).

Nor am I demanding you or anyone else agree with those (unlike the time you said discussion on this subject was impossible if the ferg stats were not uniformly accepted).
.

If you cant stand over your posts by backing them up then they belong in fiction not military forums.

Morlar wrote: »

Yes, you made a point dressed as a question. However you did not seem to back it up with anything much.

As stated earlier what do you have to prove this was part of an orchestrated policy ?
.

Eh- hence it was a question rather than proof of anything.

Morlar wrote: »

Could not the same be said of the vast German death toll post-war - that that was also an orchestrated policy of extermination ? Without anything of substance to back it up anyone (including an author) can claim anything dressed up as a question or not.

Fortunately a different poster has posted possible answers so I dont need to engage in your level of bickering over authors of either history or gastromy.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you cant stand over your posts by backing them up then they belong in fiction not military forums.

Didn't you just make a post totally ignoring all of the differences between my approach to that article and your own view on the fergie-stats ?

Who exactly is not standing over their own posts now ? Or do you now accept there was no real comparison and your point from less than an hour ago was ridiculous ?

I have yet to make a post in the WW2 forum that I do not stand over, & unlike you I am not so quick to resort to insults.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Eh- hence it was a question rather than proof of anything.

You made a point dressed up as a question and sought to use that as a starting point for a discussion :

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
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.

If you honestly don't understand the difference between asking a genuine, honest and legitimate question and trying to use clumsily worded, loaded ones to try to make points (which have no apparent basis in fact) then you are beyond help.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Fortunately a different poster has posted possible answers so I dont need to engage in your level of bickering over authors of either history or gastromy.

In other words . . . . your assumption that I would post something based on thin air has proven to be false.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Didn't you just make a post totally ignoring all of the differences between my approach to that article and your own view on the fergie-stats ?

Who exactly is not standing over their own posts now ? Or do you now accept there was no real comparison and your point from less than an hour ago was ridiculous ?

I have yet to make a post in the WW2 forum that I do not stand over, & unlike you I am not so quick to resort to insults.

You made a point dressed up as a question and sought to use that as a starting point for a discussion :

If you honestly don't understand the difference between asking a genuine, honest and legitimate question and trying to use clumsily worded, loaded ones to try to make points (which have no apparent basis in fact) then you are beyond help.

In other words . . . . your assumption that I would post something based on thin air has proven to be false.

None of this type of bickering has any benefit to the subject.

marcsignal wrote: »

Have been digging around regarding these deaths in post war Germany.
Some sources even have that figure as high as 9 million.



Crimes and Mercies

After the Reich

A Terrible Revenge

It turns out Eisenhower had captured German soldiers redesignated as DEF (Disarmed Enemy Forces) as opposed to POW's, so as to deny them the treatment entitled to them under the Geneva Convention.
This cynically enabled him to starve over a million of them to death, and thus avoid prosecution under the Convention.

edit: I found this piece interesting also.

Repatriation — The Dark Side of World War II

.

Interesting link. Vlasovs army is mentioned in different thread on the formation of Werwolf units around Prague and deserves further study- I will post a new thread on him if noone beats me to it soon. The figures for German post war losses are also interesting although they require breakdown- The Russian zone I suspect is where most of the damage was done. Mis-treatment of the population was actively encouraged by many people up to the Generals including Zhukov as retaliation for their own occupation by the Germans. The Allies had also set out to treat the Germans harshly but their intentions mellowed quite fast and although it was a struggle efforts such as UNRAA show meaningful efforts against the odds on their behalf.

Tony EH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In interviews with Pat Kenny and Sean Moncrieff the authour of 'the taste of war' Lizzie Collingham http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/05/war-food-lizzie-cunningham-review attributed the mass deaths, including POW's in the east to a deliberate starvation policy. Reference was made to the term 'useless eaters'. My understanding was that this phrase referred only to Jewish children, elders and generally the disabled.
Can anybody clarify exactly what the term was used to refer to? i.e. was starvation of POW's a stated position.

As far as I am aware the term "useless eaters" (which was coined in one document if I am not mistaken) didn't extend to military personnel in Russia. It was only used in conjunction with the disabled for the Aktion T4 program..

Also, while a lot of people are eager to assign some sort of plan or exercise for the high death rate of Soviet POW's in the harsh winter of 1941, there exists no such documents, orders or real planning outlining it (also, as far as I am aware) and it remains only a conclusion that some people wish to have.

In addition, if the Germans truly planned to kill Soviet POWs, why did this stop when the winter of 1941 ended?

In my opinion, as I have outlined earlier) the high death rate (as terrible as it was) was due more to conditions beyond German control, rather than a concerted effort or plan on their behalf. It's certainly possible that the nazi's took advantage of the unbelievable weather conditions to thin out the extremely huge numbers of Soviet POWs they bagged, but as far as I am concerned there was no plan of action in place, unlike say the "Kommissarbefehl" of 1941, or the "Kommando Befehl" of 1942, or even the aforementioned "Aktion T4". The nazi's were not at all squeamish about issuing their intentions in writing.

Fuinseog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What was behind the German treatment of Russian prisoners of war in WW2? I understand that they did not see the Russian people as equals. However they seem to have been singled out for worse treatment than other slavic people were at the same time. Germany had been a signature on the 1929 Geneva convention on POW treatment (albeit prior to Nazi governance) although the USSR had not. I find both the overall figures and the personal stories staggering.

an interesting quote on prisoners from Mr Churchill, himself a POW

'A prisoner is someone who tries to kill you and then asks you not to kill him.'


regarding the other nation as Untermenschen (todays language 'ragheads') is not necessarily the motive for ill treating prisoners. The Brits did not regard the Germans as racially inferior, but were guilty of shoddy treatment towards the Germans after the war.
check out
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/apr/03/uk.freedomofinformation

jonniebgood1

Fuinseog wrote: »

an interesting quote on prisoners from Mr Churchill, himself a POW

'A prisoner is someone who tries to kill you and then asks you not to kill him.'

Eisenhower also referenced the irony of this from an aid point of view. In late 1945 the Americans & Brits used planes that had previously bombed Germany to drop humanitarian aid, particularly in the British zone. Bad Nenndorf centre saw British soldiers court-martialled for mistreating prisoners.

marienbad

Morlar wrote: »

I would have thought that was obvious. Informative in relation to illustrating that the feeding of very large numbers of people is not a simple task.

Considering the that the 3,000,000 germans who perished post-war,

a)

Died at a time of total victory for the allies,

b)

The 3,000,000 Germans who died in the immediate post-war period died in a far smaller geographical area (which you would reasonably expect to pose less difficulties).

Contrast the above to the incomparably greater difficulties faced by the Germans, being required to feed a far greater number, for a greater period of time. Consider also that in the later stages being a beleagured army, actively fighting for it's survival across a vast front.

A food and wine critic Morlar ! how standards have changed

Morlar

marienbad wrote: »

A food and wine critic Morlar ! how standards have changed

Yet again I find myself replying to a not very useful, informative or insightful post from you in order to to address something which has already been covered :

Morlar wrote: »

You are overlooking a couple of simple facts ;

I am not demanding you or anyone else take that as ultimate fact in order to proceed with the discussion (unlike when you said I had to accept the fergie stats or provide alternatives).

Nor am I alleging a bias on the part of anyone who does not accept them - (unlike the time you said it was a pro-nazi bias to not accept the ferg stats).

Nor am I demanding you or anyone else agree with those (unlike the time you said discussion on this subject was impossible if the ferg stats were not uniformly accepted).

Also unlike the ferg stats ;

those figures are not purporting to be the 'Global Definitive statistics'.

Also let's not forget Niall Ferguson is not a Ww2 historian.

This is notwithsdanding the fact that these figures are very widely known as was also already mentioned by another poster :

marcsignal wrote: »

Have been digging around regarding these deaths in post war Germany.
Some sources even have that figure as high as 9 million.



Crimes and Mercies

After the Reich

A Terrible Revenge

It turns out Eisenhower had captured German soldiers redesignated as DEF (Disarmed Enemy Forces) as opposed to POW's, so as to deny them the treatment entitled to them under the Geneva Convention.
This cynically enabled him to starve over a million of them to death, and thus avoid prosecution under the Convention.

edit: I found this piece interesting also.

Repatriation — The Dark Side of World War II

.

But I am guessing you managed to miss that too.

marienbad

Morlar. Stop with the condescension , I did'nt miss any of your points. That fact of the matter is simple really , you called into question the competance of a recognised historian because according to you he had not sufficient credentials in WW2 history. Then you go and quote a food critic ! And one not even writing in a quality food journal at that !

It is clear ,to me at least, at this stage that you have a fixed view on all these matters and it is from that perspective that you view any publication, if it supports your view -good, not supporting you view- questionable.

And for your information I have no problem acepting this '' food critic'' as worthy of consideration . It is your double standard I find laughable.

As for the comment that I may have missed marcsignal's references - not at all Morlar, but in the main they are not revelant to this specific thread. But I do notice that you do try to broaden the argument at every opportunity as if to indicate that the Reich was not sui generis but just one facet of evil/total war/war is hell/pick your cliche and encompassing everyone in a kind of totality of evil.

And for the record I would agree without any equivocation that-

- The treatment of The Sudeten and other German minorities in Post War Europe was utterly wrong.

- That the Soviets in particular, but also the French and American and to a lesser extent the British treatment of German women in the immediate aftermath of the war was appalling and was authorised at least tacitly from the top down.

- that the treatment of German pow's after the war ranged from the barbaric (USSR) to in effect forced labour (UK & France) was morally wrong and against the Geneva Convention, The defence used by some British Historians that they were better fed and housed that they would have been if repatriated is a separate issue and not true anyway.

- that there was an unholy alliance of forces that villified any discussion of these subjects for over 50 years as best exemplified by the treatment meted out to Count Tolstoy and pursued with a vengence for years for daring to question ''his betters'' over the official view of history.

You see Morlar I do see that two wrongs don't make a right. Anyway that is me done with this ''debate'' . Au revoir les enfants !

Mahatma coat

Morlar didnt Call Ferguson Out on his credentials or Historic research, He called another poster out about his statement that we were all NAZI's if we dared to question these FACTS. it matters not what either Author did or does for a livin, what matters is the accuracy of the figures.

jonniebgood1

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Morlar didnt Call Ferguson Out on his credentials or Historic research,

Rubbish- you should get your facts right if you wish to defend your buddy. Morlar posted

I have never heard of Ferguson, he is not an acknowledged WW2 Historian with an indepth track record on this field of historiography

This is a complete contradiction of your stated opinion in Morlars defence as it does question his credentials. Notwithstanding this your post is a transparent attempt to take away from the issues raised in the post you followed.

Morlar

marienbad wrote: »

Morlar. Stop with the condescension , I did'nt miss any of your points. That fact of the matter is simple really , you called into question the competance of a recognised historian because according to you he had not sufficient credentials in WW2 history. Then you go and quote a food critic ! And one not even writing in a quality food journal at that !

It is clear ,to me at least, at this stage that you have a fixed view on all these matters and it is from that perspective that you view any publication, if it supports your view -good, not supporting you view- questionable.

And for your information I have no problem acepting this '' food critic'' as worthy of consideration . It is your double standard I find laughable.

As for the comment that I may have missed marcsignal's references - not at all Morlar, but in the main they are not revelant to this specific thread. But I do notice that you do try to broaden the argument at every opportunity as if to indicate that the Reich was not sui generis but just one facet of evil/total war/war is hell/pick your cliche and encompassing everyone in a kind of totality of evil.

And for the record I would agree without any equivocation that-

- The treatment of The Sudeten and other German minorities in Post War Europe was utterly wrong.

- That the Soviets in particular, but also the French and American and to a lesser extent the British treatment of German women in the immediate aftermath of the war was appalling and was authorised at least tacitly from the top down.

- that the treatment of German pow's after the war ranged from the barbaric (USSR) to in effect forced labour (UK & France) was morally wrong and against the Geneva Convention, The defence used by some British Historians that they were better fed and housed that they would have been if repatriated is a separate issue and not true anyway.

- that there was an unholy alliance of forces that villified any discussion of these subjects for over 50 years as best exemplified by the treatment meted out to Count Tolstoy and pursued with a vengence for years for daring to question ''his betters'' over the official view of history.

You see Morlar I do see that two wrongs don't make a right. Anyway that is me done with this ''debate'' . Au revoir les enfants !

Here is the post where your 'point' had already been addressed. This one was from immediately before you asked your question/made a attempt at a condescending dig :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71076986&postcount=100

&
the 2nd post where your 'point' was addressed :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71129539&postcount=109

This is now the third and it follows a pattern I have seen from you several times across other threads, and that is of completely ignoring information given in response and instead asking the same (not very insightful) question over and over and over again as a spoiling tactic.

Rephrasing it each time as you go. Instead of actually addressing any information (in this case highlighting the significant differences between jbg's fergie-stat-jpeg approach and my quoting of an article) presented to you.

It is ridiculous to ignore the fundamental differences in :

A) demanding acceptance of a jpeg purporting to be the Global Definitive POW Mortality rates from 1939 - 1955,

and :

quoting an article/review of a book that refers to a smaller set of figures which are not purporting to be definitive and which are already commonly found in the public domain.

In this case I will simply keep re-quoting This post as it is reply number 3 and 3 replies to the same question and your out seems fair enough to me.

Here again are the main differences between my approach on quoting an article and jonniebegood's on quoting a jpeg of global definitive pow mortality rates:

I am not demanding you or anyone else take that as ultimate fact in order to proceed with the discussion (unlike when JBG said I had to accept the fergie stats or provide alternatives).

Nor am I alleging a bias on the part of anyone who does not accept them - (unlike the time JBG said it was a pro-nazi bias to not accept the ferg stats).

Nor am I demanding you or anyone else agree with those (unlike the time JBG said discussion on this subject was impossible if the ferg stats were not uniformly accepted).

Also unlike the ferg stats ;

those figures/(this article is) are not purporting to be the 'Global Definitive statistics'.

Also let's not forget Niall Ferguson is not a Ww2 historian.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70811446&postcount=79

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.

Mahatma coat

Johnnie are you Female, cos your argument style reminds me of a few women I went out with.

the argument only starts when YOU Feel slighted, regardless of what you 'innocently' Said before hand that may have offended someone else

jonniebgood1

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Johnnie are you Female, cos your argument style reminds me of a few women I went out with.

the argument only starts when YOU Feel slighted, regardless of what you 'innocently' Said before hand that may have offended someone else

LOL Mahatma, I thought you were going out with another poster here, as both your comments are similarily incredible! I did not mean to hurt your feelings- or to offend "someone else" whom you may care for!!!

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Here is the post where your 'point' had already been addressed. This one was from immediately before you asked your question/made a attempt at a condescending dig :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71076986&postcount=100

&
the 2nd post where your 'point' was addressed :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71129539&postcount=109

This is now the third and it follows a pattern I have seen from you several times across other threads, and that is of completely ignoring information given in response and instead asking the same (not very insightful) question over and over and over again as a spoiling tactic.

Rephrasing it each time as you go. Instead of actually addressing any information (in this case highlighting the significant differences between jbg's fergie-stat-jpeg approach and my quoting of an article) presented to you.

It is ridiculous to ignore the fundamental differences in :

A) demanding acceptance of a jpeg purporting to be the Global Definitive POW Mortality rates from 1939 - 1955,

and :

quoting an article/review of a book that refers to a smaller set of figures which are not purporting to be definitive and which are already commonly found in the public domain.

In this case I will simply keep re-quoting This post as it is reply number 3 and 3 replies to the same question and your out seems fair enough to me.

Here again are the main differences between my approach on quoting an article and jonniebegood's on quoting a jpeg of global definitive pow mortality rates:

I am not demanding you or anyone else take that as ultimate fact in order to proceed with the discussion (unlike when JBG said I had to accept the fergie stats or provide alternatives).

Nor am I alleging a bias on the part of anyone who does not accept them - (unlike the time JBG said it was a pro-nazi bias to not accept the ferg stats).

Nor am I demanding you or anyone else agree with those (unlike the time JBG said discussion on this subject was impossible if the ferg stats were not uniformly accepted).

Also unlike the ferg stats ;

those figures/(this article is) are not purporting to be the 'Global Definitive statistics'.

Also let's not forget Niall Ferguson is not a Ww2 historian.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70811446&postcount=79

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.

Double standards Morlar, double standards.
Your ham fisted explanation/excuse only serves to emphasise the lack of credibility that your stance has.
I am reminded of the phrase "When you’re in a hole, stop digging".

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Double standards Morlar, double standards.
Your ham fisted explanation/excuse only serves to emphasise the lack of credibility that your stance has.
I am reminded of the phrase "When you’re in a hole, stop digging".

It is odd to hear you speak of 'Credibility of stance', for someone who tries to cram auschwitz into every single thread and is proficient in the use of soviet propaganda as source material this is a bit rich.

I refer you to this thread :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056185342

or this one :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056153734

Where essentially not a single ww2/ or history forum regular has chosen your side in either of those Polls on issues where you and I have disagreed previously.

There is no inconsistency in my approach as is illustrated in the outline above which you, like marienbad, choose to ignore for your own reasons.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

It is odd to hear you speak of 'Credibility of stance', for someone who tries to cram auschwitz into every single thread

OK- Show me how credible you are- Give me a few examples of where I cram "auschwitz into every single thread " where irrelevent (you'll note the then & now thread was relevent to its OP).

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

OK- Show me how credible you are- Give me a few examples of where I cram "auschwitz into every single thread " where irrelevent (you'll note the then & now thread was relevent to its OP).

Firstly, I am not required to establish credibility to you. You do know how ridiculous a starting point that would be don't you ?

Coming from the person who refers to

'the 'crimes' of communist regime'

rather than

'the crimes of communist regime'

The person who then makes ridiculous claims about a jpeg on wiki that people must accept otherwise it displays a bias on their part and discussion would be impossible etc etc

The person who uses soviet wartime propaganda as source material.

BTW You pretty much ignored the other 99% of what was posted above.

The credibility you lack does not hinge upon the single example of you cramming auschwitz into multiple threads however here are a couple of examples that spring to mind :

The photo thread where you instantly posted a massively oversized picture :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056198508

the 'then and now' thread where you posted cartoon caricatures of auszhwitz alongside Now photographs:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056205257

The 'RAF bombing of German cities' thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69115803&postcount=95

Where you seem to be trying to claim that the bombing of Dresden was justified by auschwitz, (which at the time of the bombing had not even been liberated). Those would be the ones which spring to mind.

Now how about addressing those other points ? Seeing as though you are the one trying to cast aspersions on my credibility when you yourself lack any shred of it to the point of trying to hinge a conversation around a single, non central point, this has taken a turn for the bizzare if you ask me.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Firstly, I am not required to establish credibility to you. You do know how ridiculous a starting point that would be don't you ?

Coming from the person who refers to

'the 'crimes' of communist regime'

rather than

'the crimes of communist regime'

The person who then makes ridiculous claims about a jpeg on wiki that people must accept otherwise it displays a bias on their part and discussion would be impossible etc etc

The person who uses soviet wartime propaganda as source material.

BTW You pretty much ignored the other 99% of what was posted above.

The credibility you lack does not hinge upon the single example of you cramming auschwitz into multiple threads however here are a couple of examples that spring to mind :

The photo thread where you instantly posted a massively oversized picture :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056198508

the 'then and now' thread where you posted cartoon caricatures of auszhwitz alongside Now photographs:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056205257

The 'RAF bombing of German cities' thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69115803&postcount=95

Where you seem to be trying to claim that the bombing of Dresden was justified by auschwitz, (which at the time of the bombing had not even been liberated). Those would be the ones which spring to mind.

Now how about addressing those other points ? Seeing as though you are the one trying to cast aspersions on my credibility when you yourself lack any shred of it to the point of trying to hinge a conversation around a single, non central point, this has taken a turn for the bizzare if you ask me.

Bizzare, LOL, we agree on something. Your own credibility is set not by me, but by your own posts (which I am entitled to comment on). I would in this light hold the unsubstantiated diatribe of your previous 3 posts on this thread as an accurate summary of your regular contributions. This subsequently makes it difficult to pick out any useful input (there has been some) which you make.
With regard to my supposed cramming"auschwitz into every single thread "- you have found 3 posts out of 460 contibutions. A real indictment on my narrow minded point of view you will agree.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Bizzare, LOL, we agree on something. Your own credibility is set not by me, but by your own posts

Let me now ask you.


1)

Do you still insist on referring to :

'The 'crimes' of communist regime'

or do you now refer to

'The crimes of communist regimes' ?

(Simple Yes or No question).

2)

Secondly - do you still hold that the ferguson WW2 pow mortality jpeg from wikipedia is one which

a- is reliable in the form of a JPEG with no context on how the figures were arrived at ?
b- refusal to accept it makes conversation on this subject impossible ?
c- a person is required to provide alternative figures in order to refuse to accept it ?
d- refusal to accept it means a pro-nazi bias ?

(Simple Yes or No for each part of above question - no changing the subject or going off on irrelevant tangents required).

3)

Do you still believe that there are no differences between :

3a)

your posting of the ferguson ww2 pow mortality jpeg (And insisting on a-d from above) &

3b)

my quoting an book review in which there were widely known and 'general figures' on ethnic germans dead/missing ?

The answers to these questions will establish who has credibility here.

jonniebgood1

These items are dealt with ad nausea elsewhere where it clearly isnt a simple yes or no in summary of same. If it helps your queries my opinion has not changed on these items but I dont feel the need to provide links to them as you have read them already.

Credibility on a forum is set by what is posted, not by you (or I)when we don't agree with the posts, or the answers to previously replied to questions.

Morlar

I don't think there was a single solitary poster on here who expected a straight answer from you to those questions.

jonniebgood1

Do you have any thoughts on the thread subject, other than the Russians died cause they were unhealthy people as previously posted?

jonniebgood1

Reviews dealing with Niall Ferguson, historian whos figures are questioned in this thread. His series called Civilisation was shown on Channel 4 over past weeks:

Niall Ferguson is the most brilliant British historian of his generation. In his latest book, Civilisation: The West and the Rest, he asks how Western civilisation, from inauspicious roots in the 15th century, came to dominate the rest of the world. His answer is that the West developed six “killer applications” that the Rest lacked: competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the Protestant work ethic. The key question today is whether or not the West has lost its monopoly on these six things.

From intelligence squared - http://www.intelligencesquared.com/micro-site/ferguson

also reviewed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8362325/Niall-Ferguson-why-the-West-is-now-in-decline.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/civilization-the-west-and-the-rest-by-niall-ferguson-2246885.html

He has interesting theories in the couple of episodes I watched.

marienbad

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Reviews dealing with Niall Ferguson, historian whos figures are questioned in this thread. His series called Civilisation was shown on Channel 4 over past weeks:

From intelligence squared - http://www.intelligencesquared.com/micro-site/ferguson

also reviewed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8362325/Niall-Ferguson-why-the-West-is-now-in-decline.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/civilization-the-west-and-the-rest-by-niall-ferguson-2246885.html

He has interesting theories in the couple of episodes I watched.

But can he cook, is what I want to know ?

Morlar

marienbad wrote: »

But can he cook, is what I want to know ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71129539&postcount=109