Fidel Castro, love him or hate him. Cuba's strong man and revolutionary leader for over fifty years died Friday aged 90. It would be too easy to pass judgment on Castro that he was nothing more than a tyrant, and the world is well rid of him. For many, including many Cubans, Castro was a hero. Coming to power in 1959 during the Cold War, and on Americas doorstep, the communists government replaced the corrupt US backed Batista regime. No one can deny at that time Castro was a popular leader with the Cuban people, giving them a ray of hope for the future, in what was, and still is, a very poor country.
I believe Castro was a man with many faults, but still a man of his times. Love him or hate him the World couldn't ignore him.

Did Cubans, living in poverty under a Communist dictator really regard him as a hero? The Cuban exiles in America were dancing in the streets. Anyone with a pinch of decency should be celebrating the death of a monster who should have been smothered at birth. The Left, however, doesn't have a shred of decency. The rotten brother is still running Cuba, so the misery of Left dictatorship will continue for them.

Dear Paul1405,

Adolph Hitler, love him or hate him. Germany's strong man and leader for twelve years committed suicide in 1945 aged 56. It would be too easy to pass judgment on Hitler that he was nothing more than a tyrant, and the world is well rid of him. For many, including many Germans, Hitler was a hero. Coming to power in 1933 during the Depression, the Nazi government replaced the hapless Weimar Republic. No one can deny at that time Hitler was a popular leader with the German people, giving them a ray of hope for the future, in what was then a country suffering from the Depression.
I believe Hitler was a man with many faults, but still a man of his times. Love him or hate him the World couldn't ignore him.

And david f your point is? Since you raise the subject of Hitler, a leading Australian politician of the time had this to say after a visit to Nazi Germany in 1938.
“Nevertheless, it must be said that this modern abandonment by the Germans of individual liberty and of the easy and pleasant things of life has something rather magnificent about it."
“The Germans may be pulling down the churches, but they have erected the State, with Hitler as its head, into a sort of religion which produces spiritual exaltation that one cannot but admire…”

He was not the only one who thought Hitler was his kinda guy pre WWII. Maybe his opinion changed a short time later, I don't know. I have nothing else to say on that subject. Do you

Dear Paul1405,

Dictators don't come to power generally unless they are loved and give people hope. Their successors are not usually loved to the same degree. I have a simple dictum. Whatever ideology a dictator bases power on - Marxism, Nazism, clerical fascism in the case of Franco etc. dictators stink. I'm an old man who was a child in the US before WW2. There were articles in the newspapers, the Reader's Digest and other publications how the new leaders in the world gave people hope. One of my cousins used to get a slick publication from the Soviet Union with photos of smiling people operating tractors.

Castro like Hitler, Lenin and other dictators was quite popular. Now Hitler's memory is not honoured by most people the fact that at one time he was immensely popular, loved and gave the German people hope is mainly forgotten. He came to power as a result of a democratic process, and others may do the same.

When I heard Trump say that he knew the system and could solve its problems I became afraid. No person has the wisdom to right all wrongs, but people do not always reject demagogues who claim to be able to do so.

Right, left or middle dictators stink!

david f, the Pope is "elected" by a very small minority of Catholics, his word on Catholicism is law. Being a dictator of sorts does that make the Pope inherently bad. Are/were all absolute Monarchs bad? Mahatma Gandhi was never democratically elected to anything, but his political influence in India is undeniable. Henry Kissinger, was also never democratically elected, but was one of the most influential politicians of the 20th century.
Adolph Hitler had been in power 5 years when Time Magazine declared him man of the year in 1938. Obviously not rejecting a demagogue were they.

Dear Paul1405,

When Castro came to power the firing squads started to operate. They slaughtered those who had worked for Batista. Even if they hadn't done anything wrong they were executed. Che Guevara who is idolised by many presided over some of these firing squads. One out of every six Cubans fled the island. Those who were openly opposed to the new government wound up in prison. There was no freedom of the press or expression. Homosexuals were imprisoned for the mere fact of being homosexual. The concentration camps were horrible. Of course TIME made Hitler the man of the year. Dictators get admired and loved by the masses and by the media. I pointed that out. That makes them neither good nor right. Ask those who fled Germany or Cuba whether they thought Hitler or Castro were good guys?

Gandhi and Kissinger were not dictators so I don't know how they are relevant to this discussion. A dictator may be democratically elected as Hitler was. A dictator is one who has power with no checks on him. Castro, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Franco, Kim il Sung and Stalin are examples of dictators. They are characterised by centrality of power, torture, imprisonment and execution of disfavoured groups or opponents, an all-encompassing ideology or religion, restriction of freedom of expression, press and freedom of association and movement, concentration camps, hatred of democracy and propaganda. Popes used to have such powers. When they had such powers they acted like any other dictators.

In my opinion all absolute monarchs are bad. No human can have such power and remain a decent person.

Paul,

I well remember a talk given by a Cuban doctor in Sydney back in the early 1980s.
I forget the venue, but I do remember that it was there that I first met Pat O'Shane, who was also a speaker.
She spoke rather feelingly of her experiences in Cuba, particularly how accepted she felt.

One of the interesting points that the doctor raised was how, since Castro, there had been a dramatic drop in the number of drug brands on the market, there were still the same drugs available but the American companies that sold the same product under different brand names and different prices had departed.

I've spent time in Cuba, and the people are not as concerned about the leadership of the country as those outside would have you believe, as the outpouring of grief at his passing testifies to. They are basically a happy, welcoming people, adept at adjusting their lives to what life has to offer.

David, absolute monarchs were not always bad, comparing the world then and now tends to distort your views. The conditions for ordinary people were mostly dire, but would have been a lot worse had anarchy ruled. True, there is no place for absolute monarchy now, times have changed.

Dear Billyd,

Anarchy may be good or bad. "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell describes an anarchic society in Spain that was destroyed by the communists. That society sounded pretty good.

Of course many people in Cuba were quite happy under Castro. Many other Cubans fled Castro after experiencing him. Among those were ex-supporters of Castro. In evaluating Cuba one has to factor in those who fled, those who stayed and those who were tortured, imprisoned and executed. Of course it is my feeling toward absolutism that is speaking. Many are quite happy under dictators as long as they do not suffer. Many Germans were quite happy under Hitler. Hitler had excellent social services for those he considered human. I am not a homosexual, but I object to their persecution. They are persecuted in Cuba. One can measure the value of a society by the way it treats those at the bottom. Few societies pass that test. Cuba didn't. With its concentration camps on Nauru and Manus Australia doesn't either. The Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands do.

Hi david f,

Wealth creates the luxury of democracy, not the other way around. That is why I laugh every time I hear an American President pontificating on how America is going to install freedom and democracy, "Western style" to some strife torn, poverty stricken, third world country. From Vietnam to Afghanistan they have not done it yet. Not that they seriously believe they can, or even want to. I am sure Cuba has as many dissidents as any other disaffected country of similar economic standing. It is not by accident that extreme dictators like Castro, Hussein, Marcos, or countless others come to power. They are the products of a perverse economic and social environment, and in an extreme society, extremism becomes the norm.

I spend a bit of time in Fiji, poor but lovely people. Since independence from the British in 1970, the Fijians have struggled with democracy, but far worse than that, they have struggled economically. Although natinalisic as any, the ordinary people have never given democracy the priority that we in Australia do. Fijians are more concerned with the mundane matters of, education, health, housing, food, transport, employment, things we take for granted. They may not know it, but the people who will install true democracy in Fiji are not the politicians, but the teachers, doctors, employers etc who through their efforts will improve the economic lot of the people. Then Fijians will be able to afford the luxury of who is running the government in Suva, more or less. I am not so obtuse or patronising to think Fijians would be better off modeling themselves on Australia, or any other society, no matter how democratic we are.

Dear Paul1405,

In nothing I have said have I criticised Cuba for not being a democracy. Democracy is only one kind of government and not necessarily the best for all people under all circumstances. I nave criticised Castro for being a tyrant, for having concentration camps, murdering those who served the previous government, setting up a state which a large part of the population fled and restricting freedom oppression. He set up a totalitarian state. That is tyranny.

Tyranny is only one kind of non-democratic rule, All countries that are not democracies are not tyrannies or dictatorships. All states that are not democracies are not totalitarian. Unfortunately since 1917 many countries have been under one sort of dictatorship or another. Dictators stink, but all countries that were not democracies were not dictatorships.

davidf,

"..all countries that were not democracies were not dictatorships".

I'm curious - any examples?

Dear rache,

Jordan and many other countries are monarchies. Monarchies may have freedom of speech along with an independent judiciary and are not democracies. If one looks through the SBS World Guide one can find many countries which are neither dictatorships nor democracies. Andorra is possibly the most unusual. It is ruled jointly by the president of France and the Bishop of See de Urgel in Spain.

"Unfortunately since 1917 many countries have been under one sort of dictatorship or another."

And prior to 1917 countries were not under one sort of dictatorship or another? Other than the fact WWI was raging in Europe in 1917 and the Russian Revolution took place in that year, not much else happened in 1917. Was Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany who were around at the time dictators? Otto von Bismark and Napoleon Bonaparte what were they.
Just because you assume the title of king, emperor, chief or whatever takes your fancy, does not make you any less of a dictator than those who do not. There have been dictators around since before the days of Julius Caesar. If Kim Jong-un of North Korea wanted to crown himself emperor, then he could claim some sort of heredity legitimacy as did the Kings of England and others, but would he be any lesser a dictator than Stalin, who was not even a prince. I think not.

Dear Paul1405,

If you wish to play games with words you can call any ruler a dictator. I would rather not play such games.

Hi David, you can just as easily say post 1945 with the overwhelming allied victory in WWII, nothing was done by the victors to placate the people of the third world, and thus stem the tide of totalitarianism. From the 1950's to the present day dictators have risen with monotonous regularity, as many with extreme right leanings as those from the left, and crazy nutters in between. So to simply say 1917, which I assume you were targeting the Russian Bolshevik Revolution as the catalysts for the rise of dictatorships.
To their credit, the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin, the absolute dictator, was peacefully able to install a government, that although hard line communist, was not dictatorial. Nikita Khrushchev was not a dictator, and was very much answerable to a collective government. in the context of prior world events, the death of Stalin could have plunged the Soviet Union into a catastrophic civil war, Khrushchev did more than anyone to prevent that occurring. A Russian civil war in the 1950's would have spilled over into Western Europe, and no doubt WWIII would have been at hand. Khrushchev despite his posturing and shoe banning, done as much as anyone, if not more, to prevent the Cold War escalating into all out World War.

What we can thank Stalin for generally, if we can thank him for anything, is his belief in wanting his form of socialism in one country, and unlike Hitler he was not a great expansionist.

Cubans are relaxed about being in a 1950s time warp. Many of Trump's people would like to have that.