Counterpoint: “objective truth” is the mainstream viewpoint and the “reality is a shared perception” folk are the ones being weird and disruptive, gaslighting people into questioning whether a spade is really a spade.
But I think more importantly there's a distinction between the objective truth about Newton's law of gravity, and the objective truth about whether $current_war is justified, or about what exactly happened on 9/11. All three have an objective truth, but for only one of them pursuing that truth is encouraged by society
Ironic example given how many people conflate moral relativity and General Relativity.
I'm not talking about revisionism. I mean stuff that's written plain as day on Wikipedia, will be mentioned in passing by any mainstream respected historian, etc etc.
You're still a fucking weirdo if you bring it up.
Trying to picture it now..
Klaxons sound
"Actually Alan, our WWI blockade of foodstuffs going to Germany was legally a war crime and continued even after the armistice"
First, of course the blockade continued after the armistice, because that wasn't actually the end of the war. At the time, the leaders of the countries that had defeated Germany were worried that it would use it as a mere pause and continue fighting once the pressure had been relieved. Post-war exploration of German historical documents give this some credence, as it was the ongoing pressure of the blockade and the public's turning against the government that forced the German leadership to give up any hope of resuming hostilities and preserving their power structures.
So it makes sense that only once Germany had signed the Treaty of Versailles and enough guarantees were put in place that hostilities would not resume could the blockade and other measures be lifted.
As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention, and the way it was conducted was according to acceptable practice at the time. In a total war, forcing the compliance of the enemy through through deprivation of its population was considered legally and even morally acceptable, especially given the devastation occurring around the front lines.
Thankfully our approach has mostly evolved since, and the kinds of actions that were legal and acceptable in the First World War are now illegal and unacceptable, and for the most part that's respected by major powers. Today we'd consider this an atrocity, one of many in a horrific war, but we know that because we've progressed since and therefore placing things in their historical context is important.
I could give better examples that have been politely ignored though are increasingly getting more coverage, such as Britain's treatment of Kenyans during the Mai Mai uprising, where many of those involved knew they were doing wrong.
I think you're confusing the Hague Convention of 1907 with the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War in 1909. Regardless, the text of that treaty does not support your assertion.
Chapter 1, Article 1:
"A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy."[0]
Chapter 2, Article 2 deals with contraband of war - food is not on the list.[1].
The UK signed this, as well as the 1856 "Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law" - which itself was explicitly referred to as being extended in the 1907 Hague Convention. Again I quote:
"2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war; 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy’s flag;"[2]
[0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-33...
[2] https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecti...
You are selectively and misleadingly quoting it, and confusing the concepts of contraband, which can be pursued on the high seas, with blockades which much be in a defined area and apply equally to neutral vessels.
This is stated very clearly in the opening articles, so I don't know how you missed it.
Chapter 1, Article 5 of the London Declaration: [0]
"A blockade must be applied impartially to the ships of all nations."
Chapter 1, Article 7: [1]
"In circumstances of distress, acknowledged by an officer of the blockading force, a neutral vessel may enter a place under blockade and subsequently leave it, provided that she has neither discharged nor shipped any cargo there."
Chapter 1, Article 14: [2]
"The liability of a neutral vessel to capture for breach of blockade is contingent on her knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the blockade."
Chapter 1, Article 15: [3]
"Failing proof to the contrary, knowledge of the blockade is presumed if the vessel left a neutral port subsequently to the notification of the blockade to the Power to which such port belongs, provided that such notification was made in sufficient time."
Chapter 1, Article 17: [4]
"Neutral vessels may not be captured for breach of blockade except within the area of operations of the warships detailed to render the blockade effective."
I could go on. The only limitation on blockades with regard to neutral states is that they may not apply to neutral ports or coasts. [5]
Contraband, by contrast, is something that may be seized on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents, outside of a specific blockade zone:
Chapter II, Article 37: [6]
"A vessel carrying goods liable to capture as absolute or conditional contraband may be captured on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents throughout the whole of her voyage, even if she is to touch at a port of call before reaching the hostile destination."
So, as I said, you've taken a complex and nuanced topic, completely misunderstood it, and are loudly proclaiming that your take on it which advances a specific political point is the correct one. That pushback you're getting isn't people unwilling to accept reality, it's people trying to help you understand what the circumstances really were.
[0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[2] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[3] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[4] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[5] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[6] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
Your blank refusal to see this despite having the treaties in front of you - and despite many people during WWI noting it at the time - proves my point. It's more important to you to cling onto the myth that WWI was a battle between good and evil, than admit a democracy deliberately starved the civilian population of a monarchy even after they had laid down their arms.
Though the usual response to this is to point to German WWI war crimes, as if they then cancel out - so I suppose it's an improvement.
You don’t have to take my word for it, you could go and find an academic who specialises in this field and ask them. You’ll get the same answer.
Honestly, you’re arguing out of ignorance here on a topic you don’t understand. On top of that you’re attempting to assign to me simplistic motives, that I don’t hold, just because it would make your preconceptions fit better.
In more than one situation I just got "well, the historians are wrong".
We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative.
We should also be honest that there are many people heavily invested in making sure biblical narratives are not viewed as history, and not always for the purpose of true historicity.
You said yourself there are only "like 2" (I forgive and appreciate the vagueness) stories in the bible (not going into translations, revisions, etc.) that can be dragged into reality. I would need to know which ones you refer to in order to counterpoint, but I'm fairly certain there's quite a bit more than like 2 stories that can be corroborated by secular means. Though I guess we'd end up quibbling over what you meant by "stories" or something if we got that far.
My point is that there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, strongly desire to stifle any consideration of "the bible" (and I lowercase that on purpose) as Truth. I'm alright with that, but I wanna chat about it, too.
That said, anyone got a link to a good forum or some such where I can do such chatting?
Try pushing objective truth anywhere were it disagrees with the mainstream reality, and see how far you go...
Heck, would be as smooth a ride as pushing "hey, blacks are people too, they should get all rights" in 1850 South, or "hey, this religion origin story is just fiction" in most places in history.
No it’s not (at least not in the US). Look at how many different religions there are with major followings based on books filled with completely farcical stories treated as truth.
Neo liberals exist in a completely different reality from AOC fans when it comes to the economy, and that’s just a split within the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is fractured between boot licking Trump and claiming he is the worst President ever.
Pick any one of these groups and have them criticize how one of the others ignores “truth”. Then have them do it to their own group and you’ll quickly see how little they actually care about “objective truth”. It’s really depressing.
Just that the sharing of a perception is more important than the accuracy of it.