Which foreign leaders have gotten a really fond showing among Americans?
Which foreign leaders have been pretty popular or universally liked/respected in the US?
He was the most politically powerful elected official in France for like a year so I think it’s a fine answer
He was popular among the paris national guard at the earliest days of the revolution, but he was far from being the most powerful, the height of his power was probably right after the bastille fell. It was all downhill from there, he even tried to lead a counterattack against the republicans when they caught the king trying to flee, but he couldnt even muster a force.
I’d say the Feast of the Federation was probably his political height. He was the leader of the national guard, not just popular among them, and had a lot of political power to the point that Louis XVI thought Lafayette wanted to be the head of state. However, I agree that his power was somewhat illusory, as everyone in the French Revolution had the big problem of the mob pulling the “leaders” ever more and more radical or axing them. But the Flight to Varennes was really the point where everything fell apart for Lafayette imo.
Glad to not be living in such "eventful" times anymore.
I’d say overall this is the best answer. Lafayette was like a son to Washington. Everyone loved him. During the French Revolution when he was under scrutiny from the new republic, the US told France essentially “if you hurt Lafayette we will see that as an act of war”. During WW1, when American troops arrived in France, they marched past Lafayettes tomb with many shouting “Lafayette! We are here!”
There is a "Lafayette" town in like 20+ states, and "Lafayette" street in numerous cities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_named_for_the_Marquis_de_Lafayette
My History teacher mentioned Napoleon was quite popular amongst the US leaders at the time of his rule and admired the US as well. He even considered fleeing to the USA for one of his exiles, but alas plans fell through. Several of his relatives did end up coming to the USA around the time of his exile.
Yeah, he was going to flee to New Orleans. There's a restaurant here called Napoleon House. They have excellent muffalettas.
Napoleon doesn’t flee.
IIRC his brother even had a residence in NJ
I think you're thinking of his nephew Bo, his brother Jérôme's son
Joseph Bonaparte escaped to the United States in 1815 after the Hundred Days. Lived in NY and Philadelphia before purchasing an estate in New Jersey. Lived in the US for almost 20 years before moving to London.
Oh cool! Thanks for the new knowledge!
I only remember it because I looked into trying to visit it. Sadly, the main house was torn down by a later owner. Joseph had one of Jacque Louis David’s Napoleon Crossing the Alps in it, but it ended up back in Europe. I think some of his art is still at the Philly art museum though.
Hero of Two Worlds is a fantastic book about him and his very interesting life.
I’ve read it, and I agree. He was a fascinating person. It’s interesting that his political views stayed relatively consistent throughout his life, but events around him caused him to be labeled a royalist, then a radical revolutionary, then an arch conservative anti-revolutionary, then back to a national revolutionary hero.
OP just said leader, and Lafayette was a leader of men so he definitely counts.
This was my answer when I read the question .
I still get choked up when I remember General Pershing arriving in France in WWI, announcing “Lafayette, I have returned”. We owe that country.
Churchill. Believe it or not but Napoleon was well liked by many of the Founders due to spreading democratic ideas, being our ally in 1812 after British Impressment, and selling us Greater Louisiana. Mandela. Gandhi is so popular he is in many US classrooms as a poster.
If we go before US existence, lots of Americans grow up learning about Alexander the Great, at least I did lol.
Moderator removed comment
20d
Um because there were no British troops outside Bengal villages preventing them from leaving during that famine. Huuuuge difference.
When you put troops outside Ukrainian villages, preventing starving Ukrainians from leaving and shooting them when they try to, that is genocide.
When you intentionally cause a famine during peacetime to increase industrialization in Russian cities, especially at the expense of Ukrainians, the oppressed and colonized group of the Russian and Soviet Empire, and then after millions of those Ukrainians die, you move Russians into their land and send any remaining resistance to Gulags. That is both genocide, and settler colonialism.
All of Donbas used to be Ukrainian majority, now, DPR and LPR (just the 2015 areas), are Russian majority, due to the Holodomor genocide and the Gulag Genocides which also effected Estonians massively which is why Russians are the majority in Eastern Estonia as well.
That is settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. No question. Then there is Crimea, full obvious genocide of the Tatars is why it is Russian majority today.
Now remember when i brought up peacetime earlier in reference to the Holodomor? The reason why relates to the Bengal famine.
The casualties were similar, both were horrifying, all famines are, but intentions matter too.
The Bengal famine happened while Britain was fighting the largest war in History and for their very survival. This is no excuse for Churchill ignoring the famine, but, it does show a difference of intentions. If there was no WW2, Britain would have rerouted the grain from Australia. Yes Churchill was a racist, but back then, he was still far less racist than the Axis or the Soviets, and was not intentionally allowing the Bengal Famine to continue, he just cared far more about the war effort.
This is wrong, and one of the many reasons I support FDR twisting Churchill's arm to promise independence and pressure him to care more about the people of British Raj. But, to compare Stalin and Churchill is terrifying and something people who deny Tianamen Square would do.
Churchill was negligent towards Bengal during a war for Britain's survival, and failed to reroute grain from Australia. He didn't cause the famine, he didn't steal any grain, and there was no English substantial settler colonialism in Bengal nor troops shooting at those escaping villages. Stalin stole all the grain from Ukraine so he could artificially supercharge the industrialization of the majority Moscow centric Russian power base. Stalin shot any Ukrainians who tried to escape and sent the rest to Gulags for resisting the settler colonialism and starvation. 18 million people died in the Gulags. Millions died in the Holodomor, even the numbers are worse.
I do always say Britain was the most cruel to India and Ireland, but even that cruelty paled in comparison to the mass genocidal nature of the Soviet Empire.
Especially shooting starving people escaping villages, that makes it a genocide for sure, and the fact that people are even arguing about whether it in or not makes me lose faith in humanity. Soviet apologia is the worst, next to CCP, German Reich, and Japanese Empire apologia.
The British did horrible things, the worst of which btw was the crushing of the Sepoy rebellion, not the Bengal Famine, but none of their crimes compare to the 5 empires who killed tens of millions of civilians in just a few decades. I mentioned 4 of them, Russia/Soviet, CCP/China, German Reich, Japanese Empire, and the one I didn't mention, Mongol Empire. I'd be curious to know if there are any others who killed tens of millions in just a few decades...maybe Leopold? Maybe Timur. But there aren't many, and British aren't one of them.
I don't know enough about the Iranian famine...but the Soviets were occupying Iran too, so I think they both have blame there and it seems to have started even before they arrived so that one I will have to look more into.
Anyways, as I said, intention is the main difference. Churchill is an asshole for being negligent to the Bengalis, but he didn't cause the famine like Stalin did and it was not an intentional genocide followed up by settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing.
Actually, what followed it, thanks to FDR's pressure and Gandhi's bravery, was independence for all of British Raj, just a few years later.
As to why we like Churchill. Well, he did hold out the longest against the Germans, was one of the first people alongside FDR to call out Hitler and see fascism as a threat that cannot be appeased. His speeches were legendary. And finally, one of my personal reasons for, he was great friends with my favorite leader of all time, FDR. That friendship was a part of why British Raj was promised independence, which helped give legitimacy to Gandhi's goals.
Moderator removed comment
20d
Your comment isn't down voted it has 1 vote, can you respond without that as a point?
Moderator removed comment
20d
Ah ok, well ill give you a vote too just to make it more visible, this is an interesting discussion.
Um I'm going to need to see evidence of that 100 million number, India always had famines like the whole world in the 1800s. Do you count every famine in the Russian empire as Russian caused? I only count the Holodomor as that, not even 1923, where tens of millions would have died if not for US and Hoover saving them with seeds and food.
If you are going to count every Indian who died of starvation under British rule then I guess I could get that number to 100 million under Russian rule.
I already covered this, Churchill did not kill 3 million Indians, he didn't even cause the famine, he ignored the famine due to WW2. The hypothetical you asked me is not analogous.
Ok don't bring up the Atom bombs, that is a whole other discussion and most people who bring it up are doing so in bad faith. You have to understand the context of WW2 to understand the Atom Bombs. Most people who talk about it are either Communist or Fascist apologetics. You cannot just talk about Pearl Harbor. What about the Pacific Islands? Phillipines? Korea? China? Ever wonder why Vietnam holds a bigger grudge against Japan than the USA?
Or..why Japan never brings up the Atom Bombs, at least not as an argument to make America look bad, instead they approach it as we do, a reminder that we should always be allies and never fight each other again. I'll tell you why, because if America didn't occupy Japan, Soviets or China would have. Soviets would have enslaved them and sent them to gulags. China would have...well...let's just say..they wouldn't leave a male alive except for experiments, they wanted revenge and they wanted it to be worse than what they experienced. China to this day wants revenge and teaches their kids in school to be ok with doing horrible things to Japanese civilians. If anything, the US prevented millions from dying in an amphibious invasion and tens of millions from dying from Soviets and probably all dying if China took over.
I do think the 2nd one was overkill, and maybe there were better targets, but WW2 was crazy. I just get suspicious when people bring up the Atom bombs because WW2 was an extreme total war and the democratic allies were actually the nicest of major powers engaged, killed around 900,000 civilians, while the non democracies each killed millions and tens of millions. Just seems weird there is so much focus on the Atom bombs by so many, when even firebombing was worse, and that paled in comparison to what the fascists and communists did in that war. Ww2 was crazy man.
If you're going to judge US, judge us for the Vietnam War, that was our worst war crimes ever.
India historically has had very few famines, its land is some of the most fertile in the world, that's why it has the largest population.
It wasn't until the British came along famines started coming up left and right at unprecedented levels, 25 to be exact. To put that in perspective from 1300 to 1600, there were 9 recorded famines. The British Raj only lasted a 100 years but had almost 3x the amount of famines as the 300 year old Vijaynagara empire.
The Bengali famine was partially caused by the British and Churchill. They burned huge swaths of agricultural land in case the Japanese made it deep into the mainland (they barely got past Burma), extreme lengths they would've never resorted to if it was their own people. But since it was Indians they didn't care.
This is again emphasized when Churchill redirected food shipments to pretty much everywhere BUT India, knowing millions of Bengalis would die. Here's a quote shedding some light on the situation.
"Churchill's animosity and perhaps racism toward Indians decided the exact location where famine would fall... The War Cabinet's shipping assignments show Australian wheat flour travelling to Ceylon, the Middle East, and Southern Africa – everywhere in the Indian Ocean but to India. Those assignments show a will to punish"
What's most disgusting about this is 2.5 million Indians fought in WW2. The very nation they were fighting for killed more Indians than the enemy.
Yes I'm aware of the quote and the 2.5 million, hence why I love FDR for caring about Indians and just an FYI, we sent 16 million just saying, low key brag just putting it out there.
Can you answer my question though? Do you think the Russians killed over 100 million people? Lots of famines happened under their watch. Holodomor was an intentional genocide, but famines like 1923 were not, did Russia kill all those people in 1923?
Moderator removed comment
19d
All of humanity had tons of famines, yes even India. Most of India's hard-core agriculture is in the North, the South especially has had tons of famines, but even the North sometimes, like all humans, famines were much more common in ancient times.
You're acting like the world was a Utopia before Western Sea based colonialism, the Mauryan Emprie alone killed over 2 million Indians, and that was when pops were lower. Chinese wars had tens of millions of deaths even in ancient.
I'm sorry but this is a modern anti Western myth that Western colonialism ushered in a special era of suffering. It did not. You talk of British propaganda but have you ever considered you fall for anti Western propaganda?
I will admit that the British made things worse, but I think the same of the Muslim and Hindu empires upon those they oppressed. You're acting like only Western Empires caused millions of deaths, but all empires do this.
I had a convo with someone who made all the same apologia for Arab empires that some British people do for Britain. Feels like everyone makes excuses for their past empires while demonizing other empires.
"I do feel the communists did some good except for eastern europe" well Central Asia was brutalized too, its easy to discount the suffering of others, but I have relatives who were alive during the empire. They sent tanks in, people were starving, 18 million sent to the gulags. Regardless of the cynical cold War strategies both sides engaged in, including Soviet support for some Africans while they killed others, was just for personal gain.
America has helped many groups too, like Kurds, Kuwait, South Korea, the list goes on. There is a reason many nations prefer the US and West over the Eastern dictators like Russia and China.
If you look at the numbers, the US has killed way less than the Soviets in the Cold War, the Soviets were clearly the worse power during that conflict and before.
Idk, it seems like you, and the world, ignore all the good the US does, the bad the Soviets and CCP have done (like the Xinjiang genocide or Chechnya wars, each of which are worse than anything the US has ever done to Islam), you overplay US crimes and overplay the "good" (if any, it was all just to gain more power globally) that the Soviet Empire has done.
Maybe this is just how the world works, there are teams. I am on team democracy and statistics show we are the lesser of evils in all cases. WW2, Cold War, even in Vietnam, Japan and China were worse.
Not all wars in India were caused by British, British mostly took advantage and used the wars to gain power, but there were real deep rooted conflicts in India, even before the Islamic invasions with ethnic and Caste conflicts, but especially after the Islamic invasions.
People like to blame the West for the beef between Hindus and Muslims but that started long before the West arrived in India.
- Reported is the key word there, kings lie, also, thats just not true, famines happened everywhere in the world, and remember, North and South India are very different places in all ways, from climate to culture to agriculture.
I could make the same apologia arguments you make for the Soviet Empire, the British did spread technology and ideas.
But guess what, every Empire did. I'm willing to say the British Empire did horrible things to India, because they did. India and Ireland got it the worst from British Empire and I have been saying that since the start. Why do you think I love FDR so much, one reason is his support for Indian independence and his respect for the 2.5 million Indians who fought in WW2.
Just to inform though, because people always underestimate the USA's contribution to the world when it could have stayed at home, the US sent 16 million men to fight in WW2 when we could have just stayed home. Indian homeland was under attack by Japan, Chinese homeland under attack by Japan, Soviet homeland under attack, Britain under attack. We just got attacked once in Hawaii and decided to send 16 mil men to save the world, and they did.
So yah, I'm not making excuses for the British, they did horrible things to India, just wish you wouldn't engage in apologia for the fascists and communists. They are way worse than democracies, both killed tens of millions in a few decades. I love the Metro series as both fascists and commies are the bad guys, which is the truth.
But I will say this, all empires in history have done amazing and horrible things to varying degrees. Some were worse than others, some better. Based on the numbers, intent, and actions, I've studied many empires. Among them, Soviet Empire is in the top 5 worst. British is one of the tamer ones compared to ones like the Belgian, French, and way tamer than Japanese, Mongol, Soviet, and Chinese empires. I'm not making excuses for them. They did horrible things, but numbers and intent do matter. If they don't you are basically saying that all empires are equally evil, like the Japanese Empire is just as bad as the Portuguese Empire, while in reality the Japanese Empire was way worse.
Lol damn you got me ranting about the atom bombs anyways so I couldn't answer your Mao question in that comment.
I mean Mao wasn't as bad as Stalin I will give you that. But he is still way worse than Churchill. Churchill through negligence killed millions, Mao through negligence killed tens of millions. Also, Mao was a dictator, in a democracy pressure can cause a change of course which can prevent things from getting worse. In a dictatorship the fallacy of sunk costs and an inability for the leader to be held accountable or admit wrong means their baddl decisions don't get reversed or stopped for much longer. Mao also did kill huge amounts of people through suppression, and did engage in Imperialism and racism agaisnt people like the Vietnamese.
There's an interesting monument in Vietnam for past wars of defense against invaders, the bigger the monument, the worse the invader. The smallest monument is the US one, that was our most evil war, yet their least evil invader. The next one is the French, then the Japanese. The largest monument, for the defense agaisnt the worst invader of the Vietnamese throughout history, is the one for the Chinese invasions. If you are to count hundreds of years of famine in India, why not count the thousands of years of brutal colonialism and Imperialism that China has imposed upon the Vietnamese people.
Believe it or not, before Liu Bang, South China was populated by Vietnamese people.
Moderator removed comment
19d
I'm not. I literally have justified nothing, you misunderstand me. But some war crimes are worse than others. The Axis was worse than the allies and to say otherwise is fascist apologia. Saying one side is worse than another is not about justifying any side's crimes, it is just a fact. Axis was worse than democratic allies. Not sure if i can help you upvote on this one lol, I disagree too hard, it feels like fascist apologia to me.
Moderator removed comment
19d
Um I going to need to see evidence of that 60 million number cause by Mao .china always had famines like the whole world throughout the history .do you count every famine in feudal dynasty as Chinese caused? What the British did to the Irish people was intentional what Churchill did to the Indians was intentional there's difference between that and making bad decisions on certain policies because they did not expect the terrible result.
Dude you are the definition of double standard and talking without doing any research (I don't count Wikipedia) And it's so hard to mimic the way you talk .. Btw back to the main topic.why Americans love Churchill and Hollywood is promoting him? Cuz he fked up The Great Britain .And make America great for the first time, Americans just showing their gratitude to him. And they wanted to make Churchill a hero for British ppl. Just like how they cook up Gandhi to fk up Brits
Intentions and scale, but yah intentions matter a lot. As well as context, remember, one happened during WW2, the other was during peacetime.
Your giving the false impression the Bengali famine was caused by simple negligence rather than malicious intent
First of all India historically has had very few famines, its land is some of the most fertile in the world, that's why it has the largest population.
It wasn't until the British came along famines started coming up left and right at unprecedented levels, 25 to be exact. To put that in perspective from 1300 to 1600, there were 9 recorded famines. The British Raj only lasted a 100 years but had almost 3x the amount of famines as the 300 year old Vijaynagara empire.
The British and Churchill played a role in the Bengali Famine that was much more than simple "negligence." They burned huge swaths of agricultural land in case the Japanese made it to the mainland (they barely made it past Burma), extreme lengths they would've never resorted to if it was their own people. But since it was Indians they didn't care.
This is again emphasized when Churchill redirected food shipments to pretty much everywhere BUT India, knowing millions of Bengalis would die. Here's a quote shedding some light on the situation.
"Churchill's animosity and perhaps racism toward Indians decided the exact location where famine would fall... The War Cabinet's shipping assignments show Australian wheat flour travelling to Ceylon, the Middle East, and Southern Africa – everywhere in the Indian Ocean but to India. Those assignments show a will to punish"
Yes the famine was partially caused by the Japanese invasion, but the British sealed the fate for millions of Indians and caused it to occur on that big of a scale.
You are absolutely right, the reality of the situation is it's not in the West's best interests to teach the full truth about most of their prominent historical leaders.
Mao and Stalin killed millions of people with their policies and political actions, if we were to judge Churchill the same way then he almost certainly killed millions of Bengalis because he redirected food shipments on the basis of his personal animosity and racism towards Indians.
Stalin and Mao killed in their own back yard where Churchill killed on the other side of the world, which is also part of it.
Stalin, a Georgian, was bad for Georgia. Aside from industrialization which was good, but his actions lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people.
If Stalin had control of India, would he have treated it better than Churchill did?
Mao and Stalin killed tens of millions, and Stalin replaced the local population after his genocides with Russians. I don't see any majority Anglo population in Bangladesh do you? Why do you think there are Russians in Estonia? Donbas? Crimea? That doesn't even mention the Central Asians who also got genocided and settler colonized and ethnic cleansed. You are downplaying Stalin crimes and engaging in Imperial apologia, probably because you like the Soviets even though both by intent and numbers they were worse than the British. So basically what you are doing is a worse version of British apologia while I at least admit and mention British atrocities like Sepoy. But facts are facts, British killed less and less intentionally, and remember, India and Ireland got the worst of the British Empire, Soviets brutalized everyone they could get their hands on. If not for the US they would have taken over all of Eurasia.
Churchill didn't redirect, he failed to redirect, he didn't cause the famine, but due to his racism and WW2 (kinda important) he failed to redirect grain from Australia to India.
There is a reason I support FDR and Gandhi pushing for independence for India, Churchill was an asshole to India, but comparing him to Stalin or Mao is ridiculous, especially Stalin. Tens of millions is more than millions, and Holodomor was an intentional genocide followed up by Russians settling the land. 18 million died in Soviet Empire gulags. I don't see that in Bengal. Bengal famine is more comparable to 1923 Soviet famine, which America saved them from.
Also, the Bengal famine was in big part due to the Japanese invasion, not even sure how you can blame its cause on Churchill, his response was bad, but he did not cause it, Japan and climate did. Guess who did try to help Bengalis by the way?
FDR and the USA, we sent food aid to Bengal, US and India are true friends, don't let Churchill's negligence to a Japan caused famine lead you to hating American intellectuals, we just want nuanced truth of history, and the facts show Stalin is not even comparable to Churchill, don't let anglophobia blind you to the truth.
They all killed millions of people so they belong in the same category. If we are using the same metrics to judge all 3 of the men's crimes then Churchill did indeed kill millions of Indians.
No, Stalin killed tens of millions intentionally and engaged in settler colonialism that has led to the current war in Ukraine right now. The numbers and intent are totally different. Also, Churchill did not cause the Bengal famine, he failed to stop it, but he did not cause it, Japan and Climate caused it. America sent food aid to help stop it. These are the facts. You are basically saying tens of millions of Eastern Europeans and Central Asians being genocided and settler colonized by Stalin is as bad as Churchill being negligent to a Japan caused famine that killed millions. They aren't equally bad, what Stalin did is magnitudes worse.
Are Bengali lives worth more than Eastern European and Central Asian?
Why are there barely any if any Anglos in Bangladesh but millions of Russians in Estonia, Ukraine, and Central Asia?
"Failed to stop it"
He burned mass agricultural fields to unprecedented degrees because the British didn't care if the locals starved, he stole food from villages for the war effort, and then purposefully stopped food shipments from coming to India because of his own personal racism and animosity towards Indians.
There were 9 famines during the 300 years the Vijaynagara Empire existed, during the British's 100 year rule there were 25 famines.
Show me evidence of Churchill and the British burning mass agricultural fields. Are you sure you aren't blaming them for what the Japanese were doing?
Why would they burn fields for no reason? Even for Stalin he had a reason, he wanted to supercharge Russian industry using Ukrainian grain, and wanted to settler colonize Ukrainian land after they starved. Your narrative has no motive for the burning of these fields, which makes me skeptical and it seems more likely it was Japan who did this.
Yes, I'm sure famines got worse under British rule, I did not deny this, I even brought up the Sepoy rebellion as an example earlier which did cause a famine due to British atrocities. I think that is the best example of British atrocity and genocide against Indians, but that wasn't Churchill.
However, I would say famines got worse whenever anyone conquered a part of India, the Muslim Sultans caused a lot of famines too, Vijaynagara was a home grown empire made by Hindus, and if they expanded outside of Hindu lands they would have abused others like others have done to Hindus. Sikhs are an example of people abused depending on the empire and time. They were treated better under British Empire but not as well under Hindu or Muslim empires. I'm just asking you to look at all empires with the same lens.
Ok i did some research, they did engage in a scorched earth policy in Bengal which did contribute to the famine. However, so did the Japanese conquest of Burma, as Bengalis got a lot of their food from Burmese rice fields. It is also important to note that if the Japanese did take Bengal, they would have engaged in the same brutal and blatant genocide that they did against Southeast Asians, Pacific Islanders, Chinese, and Koreans, which was way worse than any famine could cause.
Finally, you claim the British would not engage in scorched Earth on their own lands, but you have no reason to think that. The Soviets did it, America did it in our Civil War. If the Germans landed in England I'm sure they would have engaged in scorched Earth there if needed.
But I do agree the British had some part to play in causing the famine. However it was directly for strategic reasons against the much worse Japanese Empire, not for genocidal purposes against Bengalis, so its not a genocide, while Holodomor clearly is.
If you blame the British for scorched Earth, then you should blame the Japanese even more for taking over and hoarding the rice fields of Burma, which seemed to contribute even more to the famine.
Either way. British were not preventing people from fleeing villages at gunpoint and shooting them down, and Anglos did not settle Bangladesh in the millions like Russians did Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
Stalin is magnitudes worse than Churchill, that is my point.
So basically I agree the British had some blame for causing the famine, but the intents are totally different. Stalin during peacetime caused the famine to supercharge his base, Russians, and directly had troops outside shooting all trying to escape. The intent was to wipe out Ukrainians to make room for Russian expansion of industry and land. That was not the case for Bengal Famine, where the intent was to stop the much worse Japanese Empire advance.
Intent matters, and overall the Soviets killed way more Eastern Europeans and Central Asians than British Empire across the world.
To directly answer your question, it is because Americans learn American history from the American perspective and Churchill is generally only remembered here as a key ally during WWII, while Stalin and Mao are primarily remembered as adversaries during the Cold War and Korean War.
Not saying that this perspective is the only one or the correct one, but in my experience, that is why.
It is interesting to hear about Churchill from your perspective and yes I agree that if someone led a country that was responsible for 4 million American deaths, we would hate them. I mean, the Boston Massacre was like 7 people and we hate King George
I had no idea.
Mikhail Gorbachev.
Boris Yeltsin too, but to a lesser degree due to his boozy antics I suppose. But he showed some serious stones when helping thwart the August 1991 coup attempt. What exciting times - the world seemed to be really be turning away from the many horrors of the 20th century - and these two were truly key players in that.
I would call Gorbachev the hero of the 20th century, rivaled only by the likes of George Washington and Cincinnatus. In honor of his restraint, the West should have gone no further than an informal guarantee for former Warsaw Pact members, until and unless Russia started back up with the aggression.
How about letting the former Warsaw Pact members decide their own futures for themselves?
Many more Americans liked Thatcher than did Brits.
That makes some sense. The US is significantly right of center compared to the UK, where Thatcher was more polarizing (loved by the right, despised by the left).
Thatcher's main things she is hated in the UK for are things that Americans weren't impacted. To Americans she was the person who won the Falklands War, the person who survived an assassination attempt, and who backed the U.S pretty steadfastly in most things regarding geopolitics and especially policy against the Soviet Union. The mass scale privatizations and somewhat deindustrialization of the UK that are part of her enduring legacy to people who lived and still live in the UK are something she doesn't get much flack from Americans because they weren't impacted by those decisions.
I saw someone claim American conservatives tend to like her because of her friendship with Ronald Reagan, and American liberals tend to like her because they just see her as a strong, powerful feminist icon and don't know much about her actual politics.
I don’t think many modern US liberals like Thatcher, but could definitely see it at the time. The only large demographic group that I’m sure had misgivings at the time would be Americans with strong Irish identities.
and things we approved of insofar as we thought of them at all
I would not call the UK significantly left of the U.S… like half a degree to the left maybe
London is not the entire UK (and even London can be conservative in ways more so than other major U.S. cities)
I seriously doubt this is true.
We didn’t have to live with her decisions
I dont think it's possible to find a universally liked public figure, but I'd say the majority of Americans had some level of fondness for Queen Elizabeth. A far better example would be Princess Diana, though I'm not sure she fits the definition of a foreign leader. Her cultural impact was huge, and she seems to have been liked by the vast majority of people.
The Queen definitely meets this standard as she was popular with both republicans and democrats and well known as a clear cultural symbol for the UK (with the wider public) across the US.
Princess Diana is very well respected in the states. That's one of the very few things we all agree on.
Good call she was more beloved than Mother Teresa
Mother Teresa was an evil bitch who loved the suffering of others.
She did so many terrible things that only came to light after she died.
There’s someone who’s heard of Christopher hitchens! Haha
A lot of groups in the US have strong ties to victims of British colonialism, particularly the Irish.
Our kings and queens are apolitical though- have been for centuries. So of course they're less controversial than a leader with actual power
Sure, but they still have a significant amount of cultural/social influence, and at least Queen Liz seemed to have played something of a diplomat/ambassador role. OP didn't define "foreign leader", so that doesn't have to mean just political power.
technically the ruling Monarch in the UK is still the Head of State, even if their power is severely limited
The Monarch of the UKs power isn't limited, just unused.
its limited by the fact they can't *really* use it
if the King announced he was disbanding Parliament, he would be told to kick rocks
Or, well, look at what happened to his namesake the First.
I had nothing much against Elizabeth herself but when she died I wasn't sad nor expressed a lot of emotion. I'm very anti-Monarchist and the idea of Britain's monarchy one day collapsing or the King dying is enjoyable to me. It doesn't have a place in society and the reason the US exists today is because we resisted against Monarchy. Will never support it
User deleted comment
21d
He is still very popular in the USA and the UK but we have seen some surprising indicators of that shifting at least from elements, not yet the majority, of the left. One example was when Democratic senator Scott Kelly quoted Churchill on social media, something that really shouldn’t have been controversial but he gave in to Twitter pressure and apologized for quoting him at all. That was only a couple years ago and seems to be an indicator of some wanting to shift away from Churchill.
something that really shouldn’t have been controversial but he gave in to Twitter pressure and apologized
I'll never understand this. Why apologize to strangers who live to be offended? You don't know these people. You're not mending some relationship with them like you might by apologizing to a friend or colleague.
Just ignore the terminally online rabble and let them seethe in a vacuum.
Frankly I think apologizing just enables them and encourages more of the same behaviour.
I think that is probably a legacy of the Second World War now being ancient history to many. Most people who experienced WW2 first hand are now gone, and there are great many adults who never even met a World War Two veteran or Holocaust survivor because their grandparents were boomers rather than greatest generation types.
20 - 30 years ago Winston's flaws were no less known, but there was probably a bit more willingness to view his role in saving the world as outweighing them, because more people knew people who were greatly affected by that war, and the war didn't yet seem so far removed from the present.
A lot more Indian, Pakistani, and Bengali immigrant in the US now, as well, which brings a much more negative view of Churchill as genocidal tyrant in the company of Stalin, which was not the view in the US a few decades ago.
The issue of not regarding things with historical context is that you'll ultimately get a return of 99.99% of all people were irredeemably evil. Chiang Kai Shek's troops were Nazi trained and equipped and he had conducted his own massacres in cities like Naking long before Japan came through. Roosevelt was pro-Stalin, essentially sold out Poland, and rejected Jews from getting asylum. De Gaulle delayed the liberation of Paris so he could be at the head of the liberation rather than black colonial troops. Polish leaders were only a decade or two removed from anti-communist and anti-Ukrainian pogroms. That isn't to say these evils should be praised. Not at all, but we live in a privileged era. I'm certain our great great great great grandchildren will view us as backwards savages the same.
There are more schools named after Churchill in the US than in the UK.
Correction: there are no schools named after Churchill in the UK
There is even a current US Navy ship named for him, a guided missile destroyer.
There will be very few schools in the uk that were actually started after he lived.
Except for Indians, Germans, Soviets, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Italians, Turkish, Arabs, Egyptians, Burmese, etc he was universally liked
User deleted comment
21d
Don't forget the Irish.
And given that he was unseated as PM in 1945, after the defeat of Germany but before the defeat of Japan, it's difficult to argue that he was universally liked even in the UK. The public had great confidence in him as a wartime leader. And he remained popular enough to return to Number 10 a few years later. But he was a polarizing figure in peacetime.
This is a misreading of the 1945 election, Churchill himself remained popular, Labour also did not focus on attacking Churchill the war leader but honed in on popularity of government intervention during the war and the value of building on that to get healthcare, homes and education sorted in a way that wasn’t done after ww1. Clement Attlee had deep admiration for Churchill. The conservatives had also been in power (through the National Government coalition the conservatives dominated) since 1931.
Churchill won election and returned to Downing Street in 1951 so we can’t read into 1945 as a hatred of Churchill form the bulk of the public.
You can add Irish to that list too
Not universal I'm sure but Nelson Mandela was pretty popular in the US.
Nelson Mandela was a hugely divisive figure in the US. At the time many considered him an outright terrorist.
I mean, he was a terrorist. That was the whole playbook of the ANC before he was arrested.
I don’t specifically remember from reading his book (it’s been a while) as to when or how or whether he had a change of heart on that topic or if he just felt that it was time for a change in tactics, but his basic argument was that terrorism was the only way to awake the ire of white South Africans to end apartheid, because there was no higher morality to appeal to, unlike in the US.
Nowadays it’s pretty universal honestly. Even a pretty large majority of conservatives view him favorably today. Isn’t it crazy how fast perceptions change when the media changes the time of their coverage
Since the cia helped the south African police locate and arrest him not sure how popular he was anywhere outside left circles in the US.
I mean this is the thing of time passing
MLK while he was alive very unpopular near the end of his life
Muhammad’s Ali during his peak very unpopular
Mandela before he got arrested was unpopular. Once he became the leader of South Africa in the 90s he was super popular because racial attitudes in the United States had changed a lot by that time.
The US started liking him when he came out with his unity message in the 1990’s. He was arrested in the 1960’s. Mandela changed a lot as well in that time.
User deleted comment
21d
Do you think the CIA operates based on the public sentiment?
The CIA only helped because they classified him and the ANC as a communists.
Old timer here....
Pierre Elliot Trudeau had a pretty good run here.
My favorite quote of his:
"Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."
Trudeau was actually not allowed entry to the US for a time as he had visited the USSR in 1960.
After Nixon called him an asshole: “I’ve been called worse things by better men
Both John Paul II and Pope Francis were fairly popular. Their visits to the US were bigger than another leaders I think except maybe the Kings and Queens of England.
John Paul II yes, Francis not so much. Most conservative Catholics have issues with him.
Pope Francis was too liberal for American conservatives?
Conservative Catholics are closer to Evangelicals than Catholics
But every almost other Catholic likes him.
Even with "almost every other Catholic" liking him, he's still left standing as an extremely divisive figure, especially by traditional papal standards.
Their visits also had advance teams and tons of PR. I still relish the phrase “city X greeted him like a rock star!” No, not really. Catholic schools were let out for the occasion. Rock stars and championship sports teams don’t get that.
In the past decade they have been shown to be just figureheads of the world's oldest and most corrupt corporation that hides crimes like child molestation to protect brand image.
Unless you are American catholic, then the popes are NOT universally liked in America, but in fact have a large and growing group of critics.
Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto who channeled Chris Farley 🤣
Winston Churchill is the most prominent example I can think of. Napoleon was popular enough in the US to make plans to escape to the US after Waterloo!
Charles de Gaulle
My family, for some reason, loved this guy.
Maybe it was his lack of scandals.
MBS got a big bump for letting rich women drive... until he dismembered an American journalist in Turkey.
can't please them all i guess 🤷
For a while during WWII, Josef Stalin was pretty respected in the US, I’m not joking.
I think he was probably well respected for awhile after the war, even if they had to keep it secret. De-Stalinization and Khruschev's secret speech were, well, secret, and the Stalin mythology was kept alive until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Americans seem to have liked Churchill and Thatcher.
Somewhat surprisingly given her later fate, in the (American) Revolutionary era Marie Antoinette was very popular, especially among those who served in the war. Marietta Ohio is even named after her.
Believe it or not, the last emperor of Brazil Dom Pedro II was pretty popular stateside.
I would love to see a miniseries about his train trip through the US.
I think a former First Lady liked Justin Trudeau a little bit...
What does this mean
As far as modern leaders, I’d probably say Shinzo Abe
Most Americans have no clue who he is.
all the young people are big fans of the device
Anwar Sadat
Winston Churchill
Nelson Mandela
Ghandi
Joe Clark was popular for a short while after the Iranian hostage rescue.
Tony Blair
He lost a lot of respect after Iraq.
I get it. But he was actually true to his core. He was a neoliberal who believed in the western hegemony where the U.S. and the EU would grow to be the two top dogs and Britain could influence both.
He was right on 2/3.
Churchill
Paderewski was beloved in the United States. Did concert tours, then speaking tours. Owned a vineyard. Americans love rock stars, weirdos, and freedom fighters. And he was all three.
Not a world leader per se, but we celebrate Casmir Pulaski day here in Chicago. Guessing he was pretty popular in the revolutionary period.
My fav day off as a school boy lol
Nelson Mandela nowadays ironically
Good old Joe Steel was very popular for a few years.
da
Winston Churchill and Nelson Mandela come to mind.
Pope John Paul II and Lech Walesa come to mind as very popular leaders in the -1980s.
Stalin was popular. Especially at the New York Times.
Which ever Prime Minister of Australia who appeared on the Simpsons.
Gorbachev
George W. was pretty fond of Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
Casimir Pulaski if we taking military leaders
I assume you're from Chicago...as we got off school for casmir pulaski day but dont think hes known nationally....Chicago also has a shitload of polish which might be why that is
Well he played a huge part of our independence and yes from Chicago where we get the day off in school!
There were Pulaski Day parades in my grandparents Polish neighborhood in Wilmington DE.
Pulaski was killed at the Battle of Savannah during the American Revolution
Pretty sure their was a Regiment of American Lancer Cavalry named for him during the revolution
I'll throw in Angela Merkel. Maybe not for the average US citizen, but anyone who kept an eye on global politics, the EU, or Germany seemed to generally praise her cool demeanor.
Newspaper articles about her usually highlighted her religious upbringing, background in quantum chemistry, childhood in East Germany, and logical decision making. (Unfortunately, in her last years as Chancellor, she became a posterchild for the right both in the US and in Germany for "see what happens when you let too many refugees into your country.")
Yitzhak Rabin
It's a shame what happened to him. He was perhaps the closest ever to achieving peace in the Middle East.
Apparently only the ones that can be manipulated into serving foreign purpose's by making whomever they drop here citizens then getting them to vote themselves into some form or foreign aid.
Pickpockets?
N. S
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was NOT popular during WWII, for obvious reasons, but if you look at his post-war treatment in American literature it's overwhelmingly respectful, even admiring.
He was put in a bad spot by those above him and did the best he could with it
And he ultimately lost in exactly the way he predicted he would on nearly the exact timetable he would
Lafayette was hell of a lot popular with the Founding Fathers - though he was not particularly found of Hamilton and requested he not take part in the Battle of Yorktown.
No foreign leader or anyone for that matter is universally liked but Winston Churchill probably comes closest.
Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher come to mind.
Churchill, Margret Thatcher
Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, and Ghandi.
Michael Higgins possibly
Jawaharlal Nehru Joko Widodo Lech Wałęsa Lord Shelburne Archbishop Tutu Michelle Bachelet Gro Harlem Brundtland U Thant
It would be better to ask this question on r/askanamerican . Users of this sub are less representative of average Americans.
Since when can moderators lock a single comment chain within a thread? The one I had been participating on regarding Churchill is locked while others are still free to comment.
And why can't we talk about Churchill on the askhistory sub?
Im pretty shocked so many people in certain parts of the world look at him as a monster like stalin....say what you will but he is responsible for victory in the west....the nazis or soviets winning a total victory in Europe would of been a catastrophe for the world
There were a lot of questionable things that he did in India - they sort of blame him for the Bengal Famine.
Emperor Hirohito after the war. He became to the West what Haile Selassie was to the Third World.
Which was what exactly?
A hero. Selassie epitomized the experience of the Global South resisting imperialism, despite his imperfections, and Hirohito was the paternalistic guide for the East’s journey toward Westernization. This was partially an organic tendency, but it was also closely monitored by MacArthur and the State Department.
Oddly enough a lot of the post-independence British monarchs have been popular in the US. Chief among them Queen Elizabeth II.
I think folks felt generally positive toward Angela Merkel. Many Americans liked Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Diana. Pope John Paul II was pretty popular as well.
Churchill for sure.
And while definitely not treated well by the US government for most of his life, in retrospect we tend to admire Nelson Mandela. He and Gandhi (and maybe the Dalai Lama) are probably the textbook “inspirational foreign leaders”, maybe Gandhi less so nowadays as he wasn’t always a great person.
There hasn’t been anyone lately. In the US, for every fan of a modern politician there is an equally passionate hater.
Modern politicians Americans LOVE: Jacinda Ardern Justin Trudeau
Modern politicians Americans HATE: See above
Pierre Trudeau
I would have to say that Mahatma Gandhi is well respected by many in the US. Nelson Mandela would be another example.
The ones who do the bidding of the US/UK imperialist ruling class
George C Marshal:
Truman, Rosevelt, Churchill, Stalin and Mao all spoke highly of him.
Tony Blaire comes to mind.
Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.
3 missing replies
He was never the leader of France, but Lafayette was a foreign politician who was immensely popular in the US.