Whitewashing Stalin
Yesterday I came across an interesting article on the BBC News website. The article looks at why it is acceptable to display portraits of Stalin or Lenin or Mao while images of Hitler would be utterly out of the question.
As it turns out, much of this strange difference in attitudes has to do with history. In World War II, the US and Britain knew they needed the USSR on their side to defeat Hitler. They were well aware of many of Stalin's atrocities (the 1930s had been the height of Stalin's terror) but consciously whitewashed Stalin's image and painted the USSR as a happy place.
The Allies for instance suppressed information about the Katyn massacre and George Orwell had problems publishing his Animal Farm because it was too obviously about the bolsheviks.
Some even believe that Polish exile PM (Gen Wladyslaw Sikorski), who was demanding a thorough investigation of the Katyn massacre, was murdered in order to preserve good relations between the USSR and Britain.
I can understand why the US and Britain decided that the Nazis posed a more immediate threat and temporarily allied with Communists, even though the Communists were no less aggressive and dangerous.What I don't understand is why, now that the full extent of communist atrocities is known, it is still acceptable or even hip to display communist symbols or images of communist leaders, while it is (understandably) gauche to show any similar respect to Nazism and its head honchos.
As it turns out, much of this strange difference in attitudes has to do with history. In World War II, the US and Britain knew they needed the USSR on their side to defeat Hitler. They were well aware of many of Stalin's atrocities (the 1930s had been the height of Stalin's terror) but consciously whitewashed Stalin's image and painted the USSR as a happy place.
The Allies for instance suppressed information about the Katyn massacre and George Orwell had problems publishing his Animal Farm because it was too obviously about the bolsheviks.
Some even believe that Polish exile PM (Gen Wladyslaw Sikorski), who was demanding a thorough investigation of the Katyn massacre, was murdered in order to preserve good relations between the USSR and Britain.
I can understand why the US and Britain decided that the Nazis posed a more immediate threat and temporarily allied with Communists, even though the Communists were no less aggressive and dangerous.What I don't understand is why, now that the full extent of communist atrocities is known, it is still acceptable or even hip to display communist symbols or images of communist leaders, while it is (understandably) gauche to show any similar respect to Nazism and its head honchos.
