One good way to take a discussion like this is to compare the liberal historical consensus on Napoleon, or Caesar, Washington, or similar "great men" to the liberal historical consensus on socialist leaders like Stalin, Mao, or Castro.
Libs will never come close to demonizing their great men of history to the same degree they demonize socialist leaders, no matter the facts. At worst, your great men were "complicated figures," who were "products of their time," and they are given tremendous leeway for evils on par with anything socialist leaders have been accused of. At best libs will give lip service to criticism while obviously idolozing them.
Basically, they read their history in the most generous possible light, and take the most critical possible view of socialists.
One good way to take a discussion like this is to compare the liberal historical consensus on Napoleon, or Caesar, Washington, or similar "great men" to the liberal historical consensus on socialist leaders like Stalin, Mao, or Castro.
Libs will never come close to demonizing their great men of history to the same degree they demonize socialist leaders, no matter the facts. At worst, your great men were "complicated figures," who were "products of their time," and they are given tremendous leeway for evils on par with anything socialist leaders have been accused of. At best libs will give lip service to criticism while obviously idolozing them.
Basically, they read their history in the most generous possible light, and take the most critical possible view of socialists.
For their history: "they weren't perfect, but..."
For our history: "they did some good things, but..."
For our history: "some good things happened in spite of them"