Historical Bias

Cicero

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,829
Tennessee
#31
Every single aspect of human endeavour is viewed with a bias, a personal slant, a "not my fault", a "it's your fault", not my grandfathers fault, a "I'll look better if I write this", a "I won't look so bad it I put it this way", a "I dislike him so I'll blame him", a "Your great-uncle screwed by great-uncle so I'll blame you", etc, etc, etc.

Police and authorites find eyewitnesses unreliable:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3595153
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n1574627h45021k2/
I have posted similar information on the unreliability of eyewitnesses!
 
#33
I can't help but think of The Holocaust, and The Rape of Nanking.

Both countries committed horrible deeds in both. It is well known that japanese soldiers bayonetted infants in Nanking, to "set an example" to the Chinese. The Holocaust is well documented so I wont go into detail. But did any of the Allied governments do such horrible things? No, we stopped it as best we could. We also weren't the antagonists in the war. None of the allied goveernments were guided by totalitarian rulers (Hitler, Hirothito, Mussolini, and Franco for example).

In the Persia V Greece part....

David V Goliath scenario, I think we we all like rooting for the little guy.
Dresden (around 25.000 dead in a couple of days), Hiroshima (over 150.000 from one bomb), Nagasaki (around 80.000 dead) and Tokyo (100.000 dead over a few months) come to mind. Murder isn't less because you commit it from a few thousand feet.
Some people I'm sure will see these examples ass "necessary" to winning the War, I'm certain that if the axis powers had come out victorious they would also claim that the holocaust and Nanking were "necessary".
 

Lucius

Forum Staff
Jan 2007
16,363
Nebraska
#35
Some people I'm sure will see these examples ass "necessary" to winning the War, I'm certain that if the axis powers had come out victorious they would also claim that the holocaust and Nanking were "necessary".
Just because someone claims something doesn't mean that the claim isn't ludicrous. Throwing babies into the air and catching them on a bayonet is a military necessity? Murdering millions of your own citizens is a military necessity?
 
#36
Just because someone claims something doesn't mean that the claim isn't ludicrous. Throwing babies into the air and catching them on a bayonet is a military necessity? Murdering millions of your own citizens is a military necessity?
I could potentially understand the value of Nanking as a means of intimidation. Not that it was necessary by any means, but that it could possibly be useful to the Japanese war effort as an intimidation factor. However, I cannot see how the Holocaust could have been useful to Germany at all. Especially since it was not widely publicized at first, the Holocaust could not be any useful form of intimidation or propaganda.

Edit: Also I meant to include s'escocés's post in my quotation as well. Not sure how to do that.
 
Jan 2009
8,298
Tennessee
#37
Dresden (around 25.000 dead in a couple of days), Hiroshima (over 150.000 from one bomb), Nagasaki (around 80.000 dead) and Tokyo (100.000 dead over a few months) come to mind. Murder isn't less because you commit it from a few thousand feet.
Some people I'm sure will see these examples ass "necessary" to winning the War, I'm certain that if the axis powers had come out victorious they would also claim that the holocaust and Nanking were "necessary".
There is a better way for man to solve differences. It is the golden rule.
But it lieth not in the hearts of many men to follow the golden rule. And so violence begats violence. People die from misunderstandings. Corrupt officials wave the flag and beats the nationalist war drums. Or they use religion, or racism, or whatever works.

Today, racism isnt what western leaders use to get thier populations to go out and conquere. It once was, but no longer. It is not vogue to do so anymore. Its bad PR.

But...

You can bet your bottom dollar that if racism made a comeback, and was seen as a popularly acceptable medium for these same corrupt leaders to use in order to motivate thier masses for war, it would be used.

The leaders that encourage wars and militaristic adventures (usually for the benifit of the wealthy class) will use whatever works. They dont care. Its not 15 feet of thier intestines blown out on the ground in some jungle village. They dont have to fight and die for whatever cause they drum up.

The Spanish-American war is a perfect example. American colonialism at its best, all drummed up by the yellow press. What better example can we give than that?

One thing is certain sure...there wouldnt be as many wars today if our leaders were actually on the battlefields like in the past. If the great chairmen, or Presidents, or Kings or whatever were actually on the field with bullets bouncing all around them...they would be more likely to find peaceful settlements to things.

And the ones that were on the battlefields and had exposed themselves to danger might actually be worth following, cause they would know what it is like, and not rush thier people into any future wars they didnt need to.

William Mckinley (Civil War Vet), the unfortunate US President that sat over our involvement in the Spanish-American war was no real leader. Even though he was reluctant to go to war, he allowed himself to be swept along in the popular sentiment of the day. But, possibly, he might have believed that Spain did indeed sink our battleship. So the jury is still out on McKinley and what he knew.

But the US didnt get involved in any big wars when Ike was in office. Nor during the terms of Teddy Roosevelt. George Washington wanted us to avoid entangling affairs all together. Grant allowed the frontier wars to go on, but he couldnt stop that anyway. It had been going since 1607, and would run its course. But he did avoid wars with anybody else. Truman didnt start the Korean war, he did what he had to do. Defensive wars are different than adventurism.

So the next time some talking head wants to start something, he should be the first one off the landing craft with a gun in his hand. As I say, a defensive war is understandable. Military adventurism is not.
 
Last edited:
#38
I could potentially understand the value of Nanking as a means of intimidation. Not that it was necessary by any means, but that it could possibly be useful to the Japanese war effort as an intimidation factor. However, I cannot see how the Holocaust could have been useful to Germany at all. Especially since it was not widely publicized at first, the Holocaust could not be any useful form of intimidation or propaganda.

Edit: Also I meant to include s'escocés's post in my quotation as well. Not sure how to do that.
I suppose the "military necessity" to the Nazis was their belief that International jewry was to blame for Germany's problems.

All I'm saying is that we defend certain things while condemning others, objectively and looking back we should also condemn many allied attacks. Obviously things like the Holocaust escape all understanding. But saying the Nazis were evil and the allies good is an oversimplification, necessary during and just after the war but I'm sure we can now see things more objectively.
 
Feb 2019
2
Sydney
#40
Screw you mate, you didn't even mention Russia. Don't mention the UK and US, they did nothing in comparison to Russia. Compare how many Russian soldiers fought in the war to how many black people did you Russiaphobe! You should be embarrassed of yourself
 

Similar History Discussions