Opinion of Subhas Chandra Bose

[Kizzuwanda]

Relevant due to the recent neo-kwan spergout over AOC. He was, of course, a very literal FF.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

IIRC he was the guy who wanted Indians to support the Axis and died a mysterious death.

Axis=HP

[H. Ross Peron]

His motives are more understandable than most Axis collaborators but he still fought for two of the most evil regimes in modern history. HP.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

I only know him as the Totalist leader of Socialist India in Kaiserreich.

Totalists are HPs

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

His motives are more understandable than most Axis collaborators but he still fought for two of the most evil regimes in modern history. HP.

To be fair, people living under the colonial rule had had somewhat diffrent outlook as Europeans or Americans, since for them the "evil regime" constituted of their colonial rulers. A misguided one, since the Axis would be likely worse if it won the war, but their perspective is understandable.

A lot of African/Asian Axis collaborators went with them because of "enemy of my enemy" reasoning, not because they shared their ideology.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

I get it, I completely get it, and believe me, I hate Britain too and I won't get into too much more detail but let's say it got me canned from a discord server, but like siding with the Axis is completely unacceptable, it just has to be hp.

[PSOL]

Just as the American Revolution was justified in its revolution, backed by the Ancien Regime of the French Aristocracy, so too was this revolt against the British.

I wonder what the poll would look like if we base it in a more, how do I say this, more northern country in a similar circumstance.

[urutzizu]

His motives are more understandable than most Axis collaborators but he still fought for two of the most evil regimes in modern history. HP.

A lot of African/Asian Axis collaborators went with them because of "enemy of my enemy" reasoning, not because they shared their ideology.

Hmm. This is quite controversial. His rule over "Azad Hind" was not exactly anti-fascist. He was undoubtably very authoritarian and in the early 30s called for a "synthesis of fascism and socialism". At the same time there is no evidence that he was a racial nationalist, and his views mostly secular and progressive when it came to women. I would not call him a fascist per-se, but certainly a authoritarian nationalist with sympathies for certain aspects of fascist governance. Maybe Peron is a good comparison?