Originally posted by Ushgarakof course there would
Stupid woman- they danced because it meant the end of the war. The same war which had led to their cities being bombed and their loved ones dying. You can kinda see celebration in that.If Hitler had been taken prisoner and died 25 years later, I doubt there would have been dancing.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don't think that is an opinion based on anything rational.
edit: according to that link, thousands have rallied to the parties celebrating thatcher's death, so if a much more reviled individual like hitler had died in 1980, it stands to reason taht his death would also be met with laughter, dance and whimsy.
It's imperfect observation, then. For a start, there was no epidemic of dancing in this country at the deaths of those people; if you want to make a point about people more directly concerned with the deceased then fine, but you would be stretching a point very thin.
Secondly, though, one of the reasons for this ridiculous dancing at Thatcher's death was because the left who hate her have nothing else to celebrate, because she completely defeated them at very turn. They lost on industry, they lost on national ownership, they lost on the miners and the unions, they lost the elections., She beat them over and over and over. She only lost big on two things- the poll tax, which wasn't left vs. right; she lost that because she alienated her own power base (and was generally out of touch by then). And her final removal from power, which was of course nothing to with the left but a coup by her own party.
She left office unbeaten by the left, so trying to take comfort in her death- feeble as it is- is one of the few ways they can try and feel better about themselves (whilst the more intelligent and reasonable left wingers are doing no such thing).
Hitler, on the other hand, was utterly, utterly beaten. The celebration at this death was because the war was over; the celebrations would have been the same if he was taken captive. There would be no lingering sentiment of unfulfilled release to express a quarter of a century later, so your comparison would only work if Hitler had escaped justice and died in exile elsewhere. More importantly, you are completely failing to take into account the HUGE culture of decorum that dominated the nation when it came to remembrance of the war. Hitler's death long after it would have been cause for dignified introspection; dancing at it would have been so against that as to be off the table.
So my statement stands. It wouldn't have happened- and the whole argument is, as I say, irrelevant, so at this point I am done with any more ludicrous discussion of Hitler comparisons. Their silliness is self-evident, as is the stupidity of that woman's comment.
I think we are talking about different degrees here, though...
Like, for as pacifist of a position as I want to take, it is easy to see why people might think the death of Hitler was worth celebrating, even outside of the context of it meaning an end to major conflict with Germany, the scope of the carnage wrought by what appears to be the actions of one man nearly justifies that (we can argue about history be written by the winners and all that, I'm just saying, I can see why).
Thatcher was a normal, if personally exceptional, politician in the modern Western world. She managed to create a cult personal following that we can attribute equally to Reagan, Clinton, Churchill, Trudeau, etc, etc, etc. And like every one of those, and equally every other Western democratic leader, you can write posthumous articles outlining the terrible things done by their nation during that period. These things are a product of the system itself, not of the personality at the top, but that is a totally different thread.
Celebrating the death of someone like Thatcher doesn't even come close to the "love your enemy" nature of MLK, it is like, "Don't be needlessly disrespectful", or at the very least, if you are going to, don't pretend like it isn't just immature tasteless spite.
Originally posted by Ushgarakmy point is more about people's reactions to the deaths of reviled characters in general, not the british in particular, so yes I am talking about people in their countries and Israelis in the case of Eichmman. people within their spheres of influence were the ones to suffer most under them and know who they were, so naturally the'd be the most inclined to celebrate. but hitler's evil and the hate he (still) generates are global, so I don't really see why that's stretching the point. even if the british did not celebrate his death, israelis certainly would.
[B]It's imperfect observation, then. For a start, there was no epidemic of dancing in this country at the deaths of those people; if you want to make a point about people more directly concerned with the deceased then fine, but you would be stretching a point very thin.
Secondly, though, one of the reasons for this ridiculous dancing at Thatcher's death was because the left who hate her have nothing else to celebrate, because she completely defeated them at very turn. They lost on industry, they lost on national ownership, they lost on the miners and the unions, they lost the elections., She beat them over and over and over. She only lost big on two things- the poll tax, which wasn't left vs. right; she lost that because she alienated her own power base (and was generally out of touch by then). And her final removal from power, which was of course nothing to with the left but a coup by her own party.I don't think resentment over defeat or exhilariation over victory are the only sentiments that motivate it though. it's contempt for them and what they stood for.She left office unbeaten by the left, so trying to take comfort in her death- feeble as it is- is one of the few ways they can try and feel better about themselves (whilst the more intelligent and reasonable left wingers are doing no such thing).
Hitler, on the other hand, was utterly, utterly beaten. The celebration at this death was because the war was over; the celebrations would have been the same if he was taken captive. There would be no lingering sentiment of unfulfilled release to express a quarter of a century later, so your comparison would only work if Hitler had escaped justice and died in exile elsewhere. More importantly, you are completely failing to take into account the HUGE culture of decorum that dominated the nation when it came to remembrance of the war. Hitler's death long after it would have been cause for dignified introspection; dancing at it would have been so against that as to be off the table.
So my statement stands. It wouldn't have happened- and the whole argument is, as I say, irrelevant, so at this point I am done with any more ludicrous discussion of Hitler comparisons. Their silliness is self-evident, as is the stupidity of that woman's comment.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
A comparison between Thatcher and Hitler is completely ludicrous, though. Describing Thatcher as having such a historic decisive role is in the context of her being a modern democratic Western leader, not a genocidal dictator. As I say, she is going to be seen as the UK's greatest post-war Prime Minister. She generally already is. The UK's modern existence as a state is a result of her administration.
No she's not. Not until they erase Clement Attlee from the history books.
And not even then.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Three successive election victories trumps any talk about approval ratings- that's an amazing achievement and only possible with high public support (or as high as it gets for politicians, in any case).Churchill was also re-elected after the war. Not that he was any good in that term, but the idea he lost support post-war is wrong also. He lost the 1945 election because he never got to grips with social reform, not lack of personal popularity.
It's generally accepted that she wouldn't have won a 2nd term if it wasn't for the Falklands victory giving her popularity a boost. Although I suppose that's something that would never happen any more.