Oops, to Lev, that should read: “developing with developed countries” & ignore the “a dead man & woman are equal.”

Col,

you’re more anti Castro than I am. So I’ll ask you the same question, as far as dictators go, was Castro really that bad? Bearing in mind that communism (& fascism) was a response to the times. As bad as those systems were, what preceded them was pretty dire, would you agree? And you’re not going to get a nice friendly warm democratic movement that is capable of taking control, so what do you do

KGB “as far as dictators go, was Castro really that bad?”

KGB simply put, A “good dictator” is an oxymoron.

The truth about Castro will not be known until after his brother is dead, just as the extent of the evil of Honecker’s Stasi was not apparent until the communist swill, who ran the GDR, were kicked out and the truth revealed.

Although the news about the place was bad, no one knew fully extent of the atrocities which happened in Cambodia under Pol Pot.

No one will ever know how many died, were imprisoned or tortured during the years of China’s “cultural revolution”

Whilst some here take issue with Chile and Pinochet, talking about thousands is a lot different to talking about millions.

I like that old saying

“A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.”

The author Uncle Joe Stalin.

Master of cynicism, murder and the communist system which supported Castro.

Ultimately, whilst he might not have been “Stalin’s Creature”,
Castro was “Stalin’s Creature’s Creature”.

And I never forget Lenin, who put socialism into its context

“the goal of socialism is communism”

“Bearing in mind that communism (& fascism) was a response to the times. As bad as those systems were, what preceded them was pretty dire,”

That is no excuse

I would observe what preceded things in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Yugoslavia or what preceded Germany’s invasion of Poland or Czechoslovakia was not so “dire” as to warrant political subjegation by Stalin.

I would observe the general state of African nations has declined since “self rule” replaced colonial rule.

Without making too much a point of it, Latin America and much of the Caribbean were ex Spanish and Portugese colonies. The transition to democratic rule of ex British colonies never displayed the same level of rapid descent into revolution which has blighted the ex colonies of the Iberian Peninsula countries.

One is at pains to ask why?

Hi Col,

I agree with most of what you say, but my question is a relative one. My point is not to argue the pros and cons of dictatorships v democracies, and I think it’s not a one size fits all in any case as different conditions require different solutions. I’m definitely not one of those who say that democracy is always better than a dictatorship, eg Ataturk (dictator) set up the platform for Turkey’s future nicely & probably better than had a western democracy been imposed on them.

Your point is that we can’t answer that question until the regime ends and is replaced by a democracy, which will allow us to fully guage the extent of the damage.

But I think clues have a way of getting out. The world was getting plenty of clues about the effects of the cultural revolution, the khmer rouge, saddam, stalin, hitler well before those regimes collapsed. What was found out later just confirmed the clues earlier.

When 2 million (1/6) of the Cuban population do a runner, clues get out. So far the evidence of Castro’s human rights abuses is pretty tame as far as dictators go. And that’s my point. Yes, there were & are human rights abuses (eg earlier killing & locking away of dissidents), but no, I don’t think they stack up compared to many other dictators, given the amount of rhetoric aimed at him. In short, the level of rhetoric doesn’t match the evidence thus far. I think he’s embarrassed & frustrated the US on more than a few occasions, and the US hasn't forgotten.

Getting off topic here, but given our recent discussion on the Apology to the Aborigines thread, same thing IMO. I think that yes, there were human rights abuses (definitely not genocide) and compared to other rulers at the time, I don’t think white rule was bad at all (in fact far from it). Judging by some of the posters on that topic, a total outsider reading that might assume that white rule was akin to the Nazis. Just absurd.

Edit: (last point in last para)

Col

To be more accurate, I'll change “white” rule to “British” rule, as different white rulers were different in their treatment of indigenous populations, as you yourself point out.