LWD wrote:Kunikov wrote:phylo_roadking wrote:*Given that the exact numbers and frequency has never been and now likely never WILL be quantified *- how can you say that there is regular exaggeration? We don't know the numbers, so how do we *"know"* they've been exaggerated?

Because the oft-quoted number is 2 million, that's well enough established, the statistics it's based on aren't backed up by any factual data. Thus it is an extrapolation and at best an exaggeration that has been parroted for years, if not decades.

It's not really an extrapolation. That occurs when you have several data points and project data beyond them. In this case if you are talking hard numbers there are no data points. Similarly it is perfectly possible that it is an exaggeration but it's also possible that it's not.

In this case it is an extrapolation since the statistic is based on a single clinic/hospital from the Berlin area and then extrapolated out to the rest of Germany.

See the following:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... ape+beevor
Barbara Johr's method. About 110.000 victims in Berlin:

The number of victims in Berlin is based on the statistics of just one clinique, namely "Empress Augusta Vicktoria" childrens clinique (Kaiserin Auguste Victoria Haus - Kinderklinik).

From this table we see that in 1945 there were born 12 (or 13, including a case marked as questionable) children whose farthers were "Russians". That is 12 (or 13) out of total 237 children who were monitored in the clinique.

For 1946 the number are as following: 20 (or 21) children were with "Russian" fathers out of total 567 monitored.

On the basis of this table, Johr postulates that in case of a rape pregnancy followed in 20% of cases, i.e. 118 out of 514.

After this Johr does the following calculation:

The official Berlin statistics states 23124 newborn in the period of Sept.1945 - Aug.1946. According to "Empress Augusta Vicktoria" stats the farthers of 5% of these babies were "Russians". 5% of 23124 = 1156.

90% pregnant victims got abortion. This means 1156*10 = 11560 women victims.

After a rape the chances for a victim to get pregnant were 20%, hense there were raped 11560*5 = 57800 women.

At that time Berlin housed 600 thousands women of fertile age (18-45 y.o.). Then 57800/600000 = 9,5% of them were raped.

Appart from women mentioned in point 4, there were also women of other ages. Girls of 14-18 y.o. and older then 45 y.o. Their total number was 800 thousands women. If we assume that 9,5% of them were raped too, this gives us 73300 additional victims.

Thus out of 1,4 Million female population of Berlin between Spring and Autumn 1945 were raped from 94450 to 131100 women. In average 110000+ victims.

Criticism of Johr's calculation:

I. The whole calculation is based on the data of only one clinique - "Kaiserin Auguste Victoria Haus". It is immpossible to oversee that at the base of the number of thousands and thousands (110.000) victims lais practicaly single instances. F.ex. if we account 9 children in "questionable cases" as "Russian" then there will be 22 "Russian children" out of 237 (9%). This will at the end increase the Berlin number from 110K to 198K in one go.

II. In the first table the line "Father Russian" and "Father Russian/rape" are two different ones. But Johr adds them up together. This is discussible. Though the reason is probably Johr understands term "rape" is it's most widest form. Dating Soviet officer for benefits - rape.

Anyway, according the words in the clinique documentation the number of children born after rape were 5+4 = 9 out of 804 (1945 and 1946), i.e. 1,1%.

If we take this number as a base then the total Berlin number suddenly would drop from 110K to 24K in just one go.

Johr's logic applied without consideration whoud f.ex. give us that other Allied forces only in 1945 raped 50.000 women (5+1+1+4+2 out of 567 gives us 2,2% victims).

III. Johr statement tat 90% of pregnancies after rape were terminated by abortion are not backed up by anything except that people say there were "many" abortions. Johr doesn't explain why many in this case means 90%.

In th mean while the data for the women clinique in Charite, uqoted by Johr, showes 40 abortion out of 118, i.e. 34%. Not 90%. So if we change just this, then the totsal Berlin number goes from 110K to 16K victims.

IV. Undoubtably the peak of the raping occured in April-MAy 1945. Then one could expect peak of births of "Russian children" in Jan-Feb 1946. But according to the data for "Kaiserin Auguste Victoria Haus" there were born more "Russian children" in 1945 than in 1946. How can it be? If these are the children of refugees, then they should not be accounted in Berlin statistics.

V. The logic of Johr's point 5 is plain and simple and can be shortly expressed: They raped everyone from 8 to 80. Such logic beyond good and eveil and deffinately beyond impartial research.

In my opinion such approach where one can play with number the way he wants and where single cases lead to result change by many-many thousands is not the right one.

"Opinions founded on prejudice are always sustained with the greatest violence." Jewish proverb

"This isn't Paris, you will not get through here with a Marching Parade!" Defenders of Stalingrad