Hacker News Reader

Comment by stanski | Hacker News Reader

It's bizarre to me how many people idealize Stalin; scary really. But it might just be a case of lack of education. I have no idea how Russian history books generally describe that period in their history.

View on HN

Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's bizarre to me that the British idealize Churchill. I wouldn't judge an Englishman for doing so, though, mostly because I can imagine that if I were in their stead I would be conflicted.

Back in the 1940s a lot of people in the UK hated Churchill - certainly my father who had been in the RAF WW2 loathed him. He was seen as wanting to return the UK to the pre-war status-quo - which is most definitely not what a lot of people were fighting for and why Attlee's Labour government (which gave us the NHS) was voted in as soon as the war ended.

Interesting, I had always heard him as being praised. A quick glance at Wikipedia shows some of the controversy.

"Widely considered one of the 20th century's most significant figures, Churchill remains popular in the UK and Western world, where he is seen as a victorious wartime leader who played an important role in defending Europe's liberal democracy from the spread of fascism. Also praised as a social reformer and writer, among his many awards was the Nobel Prize in Literature. Conversely, his imperialist views and comments on race, as well as his sanctioning of human rights abuses in the suppression of anti-imperialist movements seeking independence from the British Empire, have generated considerable controversy."

I guess it's always important to look outside your current 'bubble' and see what others think.

Sure.

But the UK actually lost the war. To the US.

It's just like with FDR for conservatives - for most, his greatness as a wartime leader generally overpowers whatever bad he may or may not have done elsewhere. I'd argue that Stalin ought to be looked at in a similar (but perhaps less idealized) light.

The sections on the Bengal famine gives a stronger indication of why he's so divisive.

The British don't idealize Churchill, right-wing British and Americans do.

He was not even that popular in his finest hour, as head of a cross-party coalition wartime government, being kicked out of office by the British people before the war had even ended and never once won the popular vote in any general election.

Edit: Someone obviously doesn't like easily verifiable facts.

He did win the 1951 general election:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_United_Kingdom_general_el...

Yes, without winning the popular vote. From your link:

     Churchill: 13,717,851
        Attlee: 13,948,385

That doesn't really count for anything in our election system.

The point was about Churchill's popularity in Britain (real vs myth), not the British electoral system.

He’s an incredibly popular icon and often tops any historic figure polls in the UK. Election results after the second world war don’t really mean much to his legacy. He also had (so far) the last state funeral in the UK, lasting for 4 days, something that is usually reserved for royalty.

His witticisms are often fondly repeated, and some of his most famous portions of his speeches are known to everyone in England. You also find some of his most famous pictures (cigar-toting v for victory) in a lot of places.

That’s not to say people adore him or would dislike you for talking poorly of him, but it’s a much wider segment of the population than you suggest.

It’s an interesting problem though. People are aware of his racism and more controversial actions, but the feeling is that it doesn’t really matter. For leading our country through a fight for its very survival, he gets a free pass, because who is to say that we’d be around to discuss winning WW2 if another man was in charge.

As someone who grew up in Russia, I can say that (in my humble opinion) Russians, even older generations, didn't idealize Stalin. They just knew that the country always needed someone who put fear into people to stop stealing, bribing and corruption at every level of society, which has historically been a problem in Russia dating back to the Czars. Back in my teenager years I remember reading somewhere in Russian literature about an incident when Peter The Great was told that one of the governors (gubernators) of a Gubernia was caught stealing from treasury. Peter responded by saying something along the lines of "There are so many of them stealing I can't even execute them anymore because I won't have anyone left." So instead he implemented a law to excuse theft of certain amounts by local government officials. Wish I could find a source for this, but it was so striking that it stuck in my memory.

It's bizarre to me how many people idealize slave-owning founding fathers. But it might just be a case of lack of education. I have no idea how American history books generally describe that period in their history.

They knew it was wrong - specifically Jefferson spoke out often on how wrong it was - yet he too was a slaveholder. That said, the political reality of 1789 meant that without Slavery in the constitution, there would have been no United States, the southern states would have split off and formed their own government. It was a left as an unresolved issue for future generations to resolve.

I have run into neo-stalinists.. who are not russian - its mildly disturbing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com