Was he a brutal dictator, or was he (somehow) not?

  • ButtBidet [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

    Probably very imperfect, not someone we should look up to, but also the only “totalitarian dictators” the West cares about are ones that stand up to the West. Winston Churchill killed far more people. Fuck most US presidents starting with Eisenhower have killed more.

    • cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 days ago

      Very imperfect? He was a horribly evil piece of shit, and while I hate to use language that might seem even percent 1 slightly ableist, he was a complete lunatic, and that’s coming from someone on the autistic spectrum.

      He did some good by nationalizing over 200 Br"i "tish corporations, and selling guns to certain communist movements, but that doesn’t negate the proven horrific atrocities and stupidity of himself, his policies, or his government, or his selfishness.

      • ButtBidet [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        I’m absolutely not defending him, but rather critiquing the Western obsession with black dictators. You really took “very imperfect” out of its context.

        • Makan@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Fair point, but he was… err pretty horrible, ngl LMAO

          Edit: I mean, I agree there is a Western obsession, but he was certainly “up there” In terms of evil. He also was staunchly anti-communist, though did it with a “Black nationalist” veneer at times (obviously it wasn’t, but you know how it goes).