• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Hiroshima, August 6, 1945

#321
So, do you want to me explain why I claimed that group bias may be impacting the views of Hiroshima and give specific examples? If so, then just ask and I'll be glad to provide exact quotes with a detailed analysis. BTW, the soundness of that analysis will stand on its own and will have nothing to do with me, my bias, my education, my dog, or whether 99 purple balloons are better than 99 red ones. If, after reading my arguments, you still take issue with them, then please address the points themselves, and I will do my best to explain. If, however, you want to continue to discuss me personally, then I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.
 
#327
12bass said:
Some of questions to ponder:

What is truth?

Is it possible for humans to obtain it?

Is it possible that human notions of truth are inherently perspectival?
Click to expand...

I would say that very few things I can imagine would qualify as purely "truth". The vast majority of "truth" is based on your viewpoint/bias. For example, and let me start of saying I am in NO way an expert on this topic, the Korean conflict in the 50's. Many in the North would probably characterize it as a grand patriotic conflict designed to reunify the Korean peoples and free them from capitalist imperialism. In the South, many would likely see it as an assault by a rouge nation designed to conquer and subjugate their nation. Which version of the "truth" is correct? Well, really, both of them. Depending on where you sit likely defines your "truth".

However, back to the original topic, I am squarely in the camp that feels the bombings did speed the end of the war and save many more lives on both sides. If that's a result of bias, so be it!:D
 
#328
theNoseBleedKid said:
... which were entirely less important than the drought and abnormally cold winter.

The collectivisation and food requisitioning policies in 32-33 were nothing realistically different from those from 1929 onwards.
Click to expand...

Yes - and those policies were a continuous source of localized famines throughout. Combined with the meterological conditions of the 32-33 timeframe, they significantly increased the severity of the problem.
 
#329
Yes. Except without the drought and winter there wouldn't have been a severe, nation-wide famine. Especially not in the Black Earth region.

Increased severity does not equal genocide.

Especially when groups beyond Ukraine were affected as badly, albeit often differently.

(no requisitioning, just death)

I hesitate to blame the problems on Stalin's leadership, like many have. Many policies were fledgling and, really, the weather absolutely dominated the drop output entirely that year, at catastrophic levels. Both in the Black Earth region, and in other rural areas of Russia too.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back