United States Politics Thread 46

[Travis B.]

If by that you mean I seriously believe they were similarly evil, yes.

I think it's you who can't see how incredibly similar they are!

Oh dear. Nope, nope, nope. Seriously, nope.

Churchill was incredibly racist and took many terrible decisions. The colonial system in India (or, for that matter, anywhere) was an atrocity.

But even then, no, the Nazis were unquestionably a lot worse.

That is my point - even if plain old racist conservatives are bad, which they are, there is still a very clear distinction between them and, say, the Nazis, and negating this distinction only acts to make the Nazis look not so bad overall.

[Vijay]

If by that you mean I seriously believe they were similarly evil, yes.

I think it's you who can't see how incredibly similar they are!

Oh dear. Nope, nope, nope. Seriously, nope.

Churchill was incredibly racist and took many terrible decisions. The colonial system in India (or, for that matter, anywhere) was an atrocity.

But even then, no, the Nazis were unquestionably a lot worse.

That is my point - even if plain old racist conservatives are bad, which they are, there is still a very clear distinction between them and, say, the Nazis, and negating this distinction only acts to make the Nazis look not so bad overall.

Making such a distinction only acts to make all other racists look better.

[Howl]

This is a stupid discussion. The thing about German nazism is that we only know how bad it was in hindsight. And only because the allies won the war. Between the Native American Genocide, Slavery and Jim Crow, US history was just as despicable. The current GQP is not only racist, but clearly also authoritarian and anti-democratic. Calling that 'fascism' is just a realistic assessment.

[Travis B.]

This is a stupid discussion. The thing about German nazism is that we only know how bad it was in hindsight. And only because the allies won the war. Between the Native American Genocide, Slavery and Jim Crow, US history was just as despicable.

The key difference is that we can know about what happened in American history while if the Nazis had won the war their crimes would have been forgotten.

The current GQP is not only racist, but clearly also authoritarian and anti-democratic. Calling that 'fascism' is just a realistic assessment.

Yes, the current GOP is racist and authoritarian, which is why the distinction between it and fascism has narrowed. Yet at the same time we do not really see the totalitarian aspects of fascism manifesting in GOP-dominated areas of the US, and there is more to fascism than just racism and plain authoritarianism alone. "Far right" works better for me at least, at least as a blanket term. (Note that there are groups associated with the American right today, such as various white supremacist groups, for which the "fascist" label is a closer fit, even though these groups typically lack certain aspects of historical fascism such as corporatism.)

[Vardelm]

Yet at the same time we do not really see the totalitarian aspects of fascism manifesting in GOP-dominated areas of the US

We're starting to. Look at the refusal by a large percentage of Republican voters to accept that Biden won the election, anti-voting legislation in GA, FL, and other states, insistence on supporting their party leader (Trump) and punishment for those who don't (Liz Cheney), and the support for / lack of criticism for the police and the police state, even in the face of overwhelming evidence for heavy-handed tactics, which constitutes the invasive, authoritarian government that they are - supposedly - so vehemently against. Yeah, it's not China, Russian, or Syriah, etc., but the first steps are there.

[Travis B.]

Yet at the same time we do not really see the totalitarian aspects of fascism manifesting in GOP-dominated areas of the US

We're starting to. Look at the refusal by a large percentage of Republican voters to accept that Biden won the election, anti-voting legislation in GA, FL, and other states, insistence on supporting their party leader (Trump) and punishment for those who don't (Liz Cheney), and the support for / lack of criticism for the police and the police state, even in the face of overwhelming evidence for heavy-handed tactics, which constitutes the invasive, authoritarian government that they are - supposedly - so vehemently against. Yeah, it's not China, Russian, or Syriah, etc., but the first steps are there.

To me this falls under authoritarianism combined with a cult of personality, which is definitely manifested by the current GOP. What I mean by totalitarianism, though, is the subsumption of most to all social organization by the state, which is for the most part not something we have seen here in the US with the exception of Fox News at times taking the role of a state media.

[Howl]

... which is why the distinction between it and fascism has narrowed. Yet at the same time we do not really see the totalitarian aspects of fascism manifesting in GOP-dominated areas of the US, and there is more to fascism than just racism and plain authoritarianism alone. ...

You are really splitting hairs here. Just call it 'neo-fascism' then.

But I have a big problem with 'it is not that bad'. In the 30s Hitler did not seem that bad. One Jewish professor who immigrated to the USA from Germany in the 30s was able to get visas for the rest of his family also. But the rest of his family did not want to emigrate, because they felt that surely 'Hitler is not that bad'. None of that family survived.

You can never know how bad these movements can get because they won't show it until they have absolute power, and then it is too late to do anything.

[Travis B.]

... which is why the distinction between it and fascism has narrowed. Yet at the same time we do not really see the totalitarian aspects of fascism manifesting in GOP-dominated areas of the US, and there is more to fascism than just racism and plain authoritarianism alone. ...

You are really splitting hairs here. Just call it 'neo-fascism' then.

Yes, most modern white supremacist movements are properly neo-fascist rather than fascist.

But I have a big problem with 'it is not that bad'. In the 30s Hitler did not seem that bad. One Jewish professor who immigrated to the USA from Germany in the 30s was able to get visas for the rest of his family also. But the rest of his family did not want to emigrate, because they felt that surely 'Hitler is not that bad'. None of that family survived.

You can never know how bad these movements can get because they won't show it until they have absolute power, and then it is too late to do anything.

The Machtergreifung happened almost as soon as Hitler assumed power, and the signs of what he really stood for were obvious, such as Jews being ejected from all public positions (including academic positions) and so on. Yet Trump had four years to do that, and while he has been responsible for some things such as the Muslim ban and family separations, he failed to actually seize absolute power in that time.

[Howl]

The Machtergreifung happened almost as soon as Hitler assumed power, and the signs of what he really stood for were obvious, such as Jews being ejected from all public positions (including academic positions) and so on. Yet Trump had four years to do that, and while he has been responsible for some things such as the Muslim ban and family separations, he failed to actually seize absolute power in that time.

Hitler already had whole party of like-minded individuals and a paramilitary force before he came to power. Trump did not have that. A lot of things that Trump wanted (locking up political opponents such as Hillary, trying critical press as 'enemies of the people') didn't happen because Trump did not have enough power to make it happen. Don't mistake lack of power for decency.

[Ares Land]

What is with white men's obsession with pissing contests for quantifying evil? For that matter, all of these crimes were limited to Europe, one of the smallest continents in the world. Churchill's victims were worldwide. He even murdered people outside the bounds of the British Empire for the sake of yet another colonial empire when he was younger than either of us are now.

One controlled large swaths of the world and committed genocide, and the other controlled large swaths of the world and committed genocide. Both equally bad. We should stop wasting our time pitting minorities against each other and start working towards the common good of all of us so that minorities will never again fall victim to racism.

Again: no.

Yes, Churchill failed to take the Bengali famine as seriously as it deserved with drastic consequences. It's very probable he had no idea of the consequences of his policy.
It is extremely likely that this happened because as a very prejudiced old man he had no idea of the situation in Bengal or of how his decisions affected it. I'm not sure any leader would have done better, or that any leader now would do better under similar circumstances.

Meanwhile, Hitler very deliberately planned to reduce millions to slavery, and to kill million of others, fully aware of the fact and deliberately coming up with an unprecedented kind of industrial genocide just to kill more people more quickly.

That is not the same thing.

I should add that Hitler exerted totalitarian leadership over Germany and anywhere Germany could reach and ruled entirely as he pleased. Churchill ruled Britain for a few years with a very clear mandate and strict limitations on what he could do.
nobody had to raze Britain to the ground to get rid of Churchill.

[Vijay]

It is extremely likely that this happened because as a very prejudiced old man he had no idea of the situation in Bengal or of how his decisions affected it. I'm not sure any leader would have done better, or that any leader now would do better under similar circumstances.

This is just the usual apologies for British colonialism. Not all Britons were as prejudiced as Winston Churchill was. For that matter, you could argue that Hitler's actions were largely the inevitable result of terrible parenting combined with nationalistic fervor in Germany during his childhood.

nobody had to raze Britain to the ground to get rid of Churchill.

No one got rid of Churchill in Britain. He was prime minister for nine years before he retired. In order to get rid of him in the colonies, our ancestors in fairly recent memory did have to raze the colonial foundations to the ground.

EDIT:

Yes, the current GOP is racist and authoritarian

The GOP was always racist.

The Machtergreifung

What is it with you and the damn Machtergreifung?

It's very probable he had no idea of the consequences of his policy.

Then he must have been a blooming idiot. India was the British Empire's most important possession, both its largest possession and the one that contributed the most to it. The very foundation of the British Empire was at stake during the Bengal famine; it is precisely in Bengal that Kolkata is located, and it was precisely there that the British established their foothold in India. The decision to starve millions of the colonial subjects the British depended on most defies logic.

[zompist]

Yes, Churchill failed to take the Bengali famine as seriously as it deserved with drastic consequences. It's very probable he had no idea of the consequences of his policy.
It is extremely likely that this happened because as a very prejudiced old man he had no idea of the situation in Bengal or of how his decisions affected it. I'm not sure any leader would have done better, or that any leader now would do better under similar circumstances.

The Bengal famine wasn't an isolated event. Here are the famines under British rule that caused more than a million deaths:

1770 - Bengal - 2 to 10 million
1783 - North India - 10 million
1791 - Madras - 11 million
1860 - Doab - 2 million
1865 - Orissa - 4 million
1869 - Rajputana - 2 million
1876 - most of India - 6 to 10 million
1896 - most of India - 5 million
1899 - western India - 3 to 10 million
1943 - Bengal - 3 to 10 million

India has been independent for 74 years. Here's a list of famines under Indian rule that caused more than a million deaths:

-- none --

Economist Amartya Sen has studied Indian famines, and concluded that the severity of British famines was due to misgovernment rather than a lack of food. (This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's studied the Irish famines of the 1840s.)

Before 1800 or so, famines were common all over the world, including Europe. Still, there's a good case to be made that Britain was far worse than premodern Indian rule. The British pressed the peasants hard and didn't give a fuck about them dying. Native kings were not that abusive.

[Ares Land]

It is extremely likely that this happened because as a very prejudiced old man he had no idea of the situation in Bengal or of how his decisions affected it. I'm not sure any leader would have done better, or that any leader now would do better under similar circumstances.

This is just the usual apologies for British colonialism. Not all Britons were as prejudiced as Winston Churchill was. For that matter, you could argue that Hitler's actions were largely the inevitable result of terrible parenting combined with nationalistic fervor in Germany during his childhood.

That's completely besides the point, though yeah people in 1943 were extremely prejudiced.

That said, I am not interested in finding excuses for colonialism. What I am saying is that the criminal mishandling of a crisis is not the same thing is totalitarian genocidal policy.

nobody had to raze Britain to the ground to get rid of Churchill.

No one got rid of Churchill in Britain. He was prime minister for nine years before he retired. In order to get rid of him in the colonies, our ancestors in fairly recent memory did have to raze the colonial foundations to the ground.

Of course, they did, in 1945.

The colonial system is again something I have no interest in defending, but summing it up as 'Churchill' is entirely wrong.

[Vijay]

That's completely besides the point

This whole discussion is besides the point.

though yeah people in 1943 were extremely prejudiced.

Again, not everyone. These two people were especially prejudiced even for their time.

What I am saying is that the criminal mishandling of a crisis is not the same thing is totalitarian genocidal policy.

It is the same for the actual victims in both cases. The only people it is not the same for are people who, in this particular example, lived in Great Britain and Germany and were not targeted by genocidal policies.

Of course, they did, in 1945.

No, they didn't. He was prime minister again six years later.

The colonial system is again something I have no interest in defending, but summing it up as 'Churchill' is entirely wrong.

I didn't sum it up as "Churchill." I said Churchill was as evil as Hitler.

[Ares Land]

It's very probable he had no idea of the consequences of his policy.

Then he must have been a blooming idiot. India was the British Empire's most important possession, both its largest possession and the one that contributed the most to it. The very foundation of the British Empire was at stake during the Bengal famine; it is precisely in Bengal that Kolkata is located, and it was precisely there that the British established their foothold in India. The decision to starve millions of the colonial subjects the British depended on most defies logic.

So all the more reason to conclude there was nothing deliberate about it?

For that matter, my understanding is that British India was awfully mismanaged at all times; the issue wasn't who was PM at the time but rather that the Brits had no business running the place in the first place.

And yeah, there's an established track record of Churchill being bloody stupid at times. (I mentioned his defeat in 1945 which betrays complete ignorance of difficulties and aspirations at home.)

[Ares Land]

I said Churchill was as evil as Hitler.

I guess there's no talking you out of it, but there's a kind of moral absolutism here that scares me.

I mean,why fight WWII at all? Everyone involved was evil! And yet, the world is a better place then if we had followed the appeasers and isolationists.

[Vijay]

So all the more reason to conclude there was nothing deliberate about it?

Nope.

For that matter, my understanding is that British India was awfully mismanaged at all times; the issue wasn't who was PM at the time but rather that the Brits had no business running the place in the first place.

That was most of the issue, not the only one.

I guess there's no talking you out of it, but there's a kind of moral absolutism here that scares me.

How is this moral absolutism? Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong.

I mean,why fight WWII at all? Everyone involved was evil!

Not everyone involved was evil. However, the major European countries participating in it were. That is why so many people at the time were opposed to both the Allies and the Axis powers.

[Travis B.]

I didn't sum it up as "Churchill." I said Churchill was as evil as Hitler.

You can only say that if you can equate criminally callous mismanagement of a crisis with deliberate, calculated unprecedented industrialized genocide by a totalitarian state. I can't equate the two.

[Ares Land]

Not everyone involved was evil. However, the major European countries participating in it were. That is why so many people at the time were opposed to both the Allies and the Axis powers.

And acted, in fact, as Axis allies. There's no such thing as being neutral.

[Vijay]

You can only say that if you can equate criminally callous mismanagement of a crisis with deliberate, calculated unprecedented industrialized genocide by a totalitarian state. I can't equate the two.

In this case at least, I can.

And acted, in fact, as Axis allies. There's no such thing as being neutral.

So Gandhi was an Axis ally?

EDIT: I think maybe I'll spare you the effort of answering this one. I don't think Gandhi was an Axis ally. I think he was allied with the Allies but didn't see Indian independence as a goal that contradicted the fight against the Nazis. The Indian National Army (INA), on the other hand, was explicitly Axis-aligned (and collaborated closely with the Japanese etc.).