Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "The History Guy: History Deserves to Be Remembered"
channel.
-
There is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
2
-
Correct. It was even quite easy solve.
What lacked was willpower.
As the definition "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
2
-
2
-
Actually, it was quite easy solve.
What lacked was willpower.
As the definition "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
@danielmccloud8799 There is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
1