- Joined
- Jul 20, 2011
- Messages
- 53,951
- Reaction score
- 31,038
Hitler also fought in WWI and was popular among his people. Why wouldn't he be, the people who were supposed to suffer weren't the Germans just that those who suffered from British imperialism weren't British. I'd love Churchill too if he facilitated my exploitation of third world peoples. Some down on his luck Englishman could make a new life in the colonies, never mind how many brown people had to sufferChurchill was also incredibly popular among his own people. He was a guy who gave up a cushy political life to join the Army and fight in WWI. There were people who viewed him as a Teddy Roosevelt, so things were easier to forget.
He was exceptional then too. When told of the mass starvation in the Bengal by colonial administrators who pleaded for his help, his response was "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?". Does any context make that statement better? He is well known to have harbored an extreme contempt for Indians, calling them a beastly people, likely because just as he became Prime Minister the jewel of the empire was slipping from its hands. This despite the fact that millions of Indians fought for the allies across the globe. So in addition to his intense racism and indifference to mass suffering he was also an ingrate.It's also worth noting that a lot of Europeans weren't exactly fond of any brown people or Jews back then. His treatment towards India and other colonies would be viewed today as abhorrent, much as we view slave-owners as part of an immoral institution. However, today's lens is not the same as yesterday's, so history is more forgiving of someone like Churchill.
WWI had brought about the idea of self determination of all peoples, something imperialists like Churchill were dead set on denying their colonial subjects. His problems with Hitler were same as his with Gandhi; they both threatened the empire. Just as Stalin did he oversaw policies that produced the starvation of millions and he showed no remorse. Truly a rotten individual worthy of the contempt of any moral human being. And yet, he's a hero to history.
The USSR is not the only model of socialism and communism. Just because there are regulations of the state over the market in the US does not mean we don't have a capitalist system and just because Norway is not textbook socialism does not mean their policies are not socialism in practice.I would agree that democratic institutions respond better to people.
Having influence doesn't make it socialism. It's not like the state can set prices, wages, production, and controls all investment capital. Because in the USSR, that's how it worked.