The best leaders of your country

[BristolBerserker]

Going to have to go with Churchill or Maggie. I know he expelled the jews from England but Edward I was a great king and leader. If you're English anyway.

 

[C2Ultima]

It seems a bit sad that everyone seems to say this, but George Washington is the best president in my opinion. Why? No fucking political parties. He knew that they never led to anything good. Hell, in his farwell address he specifically made the request that the U.S.A not have any seperate political parties.

He also suggested that we not have a standing army, or get involved in foriegn conflicts.

Whoops.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Wars are not fought by saints - it's a nasty, brutal business and if we did bad things we did so because the alternative was much much worse.

Which is exactly the point I am making.

No, the point you were making was that there was no difference between Churchill and Hitler - or to put it a different way, that there's no difference between killing enemy soldiers in combat and killing civilians in concentration camps.

He never said that...

OT: Every leader there's been in my lifetime has been useless. Was too young to remember much about John Major, but Tony Blair was a slimy prick and along with Gordon Brown and the rest of the Labour party fucked the economy up its arse and now David Cameron's worsening it.
I don't like Churchill, but I can see that as far as actual leading during a war went, he was pretty good. But I dislike the sound of the rest of his policies.

As for my other side, Chirac never seemed that outstanding. Maybe he was competent, not sure, but he never seemed to stand out. Sarkozy is a racist, right wing prick but at least he understands that France needs to reform if it's ever gonna survive the way it is. Honestly, I think that if Hollande gets in on Saturday and goes ahead with his current plans, France is fucked.
de Gaulle is generally considered to be the great leader of France.

 

[Nietz]

Hells yeah! Why didn't I think of that mad pimp? He's the greatest.

[edit]
Had to edit in more awesome.

Spoiler: A serious king

 

[Colour Scientist]

All that has changed, particularly in the last decade or two, is that there are more voices in the conversation, providing differing viewpoints. Differing opinions.

My point, and the point I was trying to get across, was that history is open to interpretation, and over time and for any number of reasons, those interpretations can and will change.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I'm writing forum posts here, not an academic thesis, but I dislike the implication that I'm merely spouting 'general history soundbites' rather than offering my own views on the topic under discussion.


This would be relevant had I at any time tried to paint Churchill as such. Since I've went out of my way to admit his faults I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.


Churchill's eulogy for Chamberlain, delivered in the House of Commons, was extraordinarily generous. Perhaps he was merely being polite - to speak no ill of the dead - but he could have said a lot less than he did had that been his intention. If he wished to make himself look good in the eyes of history, he certainly did not set out to make his predecessor look bad.

See here for the text of that speech, though I suspect you're familiar with it

Chamberlain was not 'set up' to look foolish. "Peace in our time" did that all on its own.

Which rather limits the scope of the discussion. Overly so, I'd say.

Yes, and the point I was making was that for a long time Churchill's own version of events was the accepted one and now there are a multitude of historians that dispute it because there are infinitely more sources available. Indicating that he wasn't the master strategist he was made out to be, there're opinions, viewpoints but the point I was making is that he wasn't the best of the best. I don't know why you're arguing that point because you're basically agreeing with me.

I didn't mean that Churchill painted him in a bad light, I meant that he was portrayed in the early aftermath of the war as a fool (similar to the way Churchill was portrayed as a genius) and this was and still is, as with the glorification of Churchill, largely accepted. Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler wasn't due to blindness on his part, at the time Britain and France wouldn't have been able to fight Germany, it wouldn't have been economically and militarily viable, he was extremely limited in what he could actually do. It wasn't a popular choice but if anything it delayed the inevitable enough for them to have some time to prepare.

 

[BlackStar42]

WHy would it have been a bad thing to go after the Russians at the end of ww2? Their regime under Stalin in particular was worse than Hitler's regime and then they basically occupied all of eastern europe for the next 50 years - we would have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if we had tried to take Russia down then. It probably wouldn't be Britain doing much of the attacking though what with our country being in ruins and all, but the US could have made a good go of it.

Because it would have cost millions of lives and would have failed miserably. One of the laws of war is: you DO NOT invade Russia. Only one man's ever conquered it, and Russia wasn't even a unified state at the time.

 

[mParadox]

Let's see, since I'm a Pakistani, I'll have to go with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan and to a lesser extent, India.

It pains me, even brings tears to my eyes, when I think about what he wanted to do for the country before his death[footnote]1 year after the Pakistan/India came into being[/footnote] and what his successors in the seat of power did to my home.

Spoiler: I salute you Sir, now and forever.

 

[Iron Criterion]

Hitler.

Only joking, I'm not German.

OT: Winston Churchill.

Horrible, horrible man. A brilliant, unyielding Prime Minister who was the right man for the job, especially when compared to those he proceeded *coughs* Neville Chamberlain *coughs*.

 

[orangeban]

I've no idea, I guess maybe the current Queen (Lizzie the Second)? Purely because she literally doesn't have the power to do anything and seems to be pretty well liked. Plus, I get two days holiday because of her! Which is better than anything David's done so far.

 

[halfeclipse]

The best leaders of my country I suppose are either The Iron Duke or the Iron Lady. The Iron Lady, because she did a lot to fix the terrible mis-management of the previous Labour government and she did waht she thought was right for the country rather than what was best for her party. And the Iron Duke, because the Iron Duke is an awesome name.

I suppose I could be cliched and say Churchill, but that sort of disregards the fact that he wanted to continue WWII indefinitely by attacking Russia, and was pretty damn crazy in other respects.

Therefore, I'm going to go with King Arthur, as no politician could possibly match him.

WHy would it have been a bad thing to go after the Russians at the end of ww2? Their regime under Stalin in particular was worse than Hitler's regime and then they basically occupied all of eastern europe for the next 50 years - we would have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if we had tried to take Russia down then. It probably wouldn't be Britain doing much of the attacking though what with our country being in ruins and all, but the US could have made a good go of it.

Russia would have won, resulting in even more (if not all) of mainland Europe, and possibly Japan under the Soviets. The Russian army wasn't the best equipped, but it was HUGE, and it would have been very hard for the US to effectively attack Russia across both an ocean and most of a continent even if their had been a public will for another long, ugly war.

 

[Sixcess]

Yes, and the point I was making was that for a long time Churchill's own version of events was the accepted one and now there are a multitude of historians that dispute it because there are infinitely more sources available. Indicating that he wasn't the master strategist he was made out to be, there're opinions, viewpoints but the point I was making is that he wasn't the best of the best. I don't know why you're arguing that point because you're basically agreeing with me.

Agreeing with someone is no reason not to argue, especially on the internet.

All joking aside, yes, I see what you're driving at now, and I'd have no argument with that. Question is, if he wasn't our best leader, who do you feel was?

Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler wasn't due to blindness on his part, at the time Britain and France wouldn't have been able to fight Germany, it wouldn't have been economically and militarily viable, he was extremely limited in what he could actually do. It wasn't a popular choice but if anything it delayed the inevitable enough for them to have some time to prepare.

That's an extremely good point.

Some people do believe that Hitler would have backed down had he been faced with more resolute opposition in 1938, and Chamberlain is (unfairly perhaps) blamed for that. As it was Hitler left Munich convinced that the other nations had no stomach for war and therefore he could go ahead with his plans.

It's an interesting 'what if?' question, though personally I don't think anything would have reined him in, and for all we know it might have made things worse - starting the war sooner or convincing Hitler from the outset that he would have to defeat Britain as well. as it was he thought he could make peace with us for a long time and that indecision was good for us.

But I'm drifting off topic now so I'll reserve that speculation for another day.

 

[Gabanuka]

This seems relevant (excuse awful production values)

 

[CAPTCHA]

William the 1st (AKA William the Conqueror)

Founder of Britain, bringing it out of the dark age following the collapse of the Roman Empire.

 

[Ironside]

Because it would have cost millions of lives and would have failed miserably. One of the laws of war is: you DO NOT invade Russia. Only one man's ever conquered it, and Russia wasn't even a unified state at the time.

The Russian occupation of Eastern Europe also cost millions of lives, but if we'd managed to win a war against the USSR we at least wouldn't have had to endure half of Europe being taken back to the Dark Age thanks to the wonders of Communism. And I am well aware of the do not invade Russia rule, but I would hope that the allies would have learnt from the failings of Napoleon and the Third Reich (although the US also used their land army in Asia, which is also advised against, so maybe my faith is misplaced). Also you wouldn't necessarily need to invade Russia since you may be able to win the war in Eastern Europe.

Russia would have won, resulting in even more (if not all) of mainland Europe, and possibly Japan under the Soviets. The Russian army wasn't the best equipped, but it was HUGE, and it would have been very hard for the US to effectively attack Russia across both an ocean and most of a continent even if their had been a public will for another long, ugly war.

I disagree that Russia would have won - of all the major countries involved in WW2 the US is more or less the only one that isn't in complete ruins by this stage, they are better armed and have a more powerful industrial base. I don't think it would have been easy and may even have ended in some kind of stalemate, but I don't think the Russians would just completely destroyed the entire US army and whats left of the British commonwealth. Also the allies could have just gone round the Caucasus if they really needed to and capture all the Russian oil fields behind them - that would effectively be war over if the Russians couldn't recapture them. I do agree that the people probably wouldn't have stood for another war though, so it would have been difficult to start one.

 

[Apollo45]

Because it would have cost millions of lives and would have failed miserably. One of the laws of war is: you DO NOT invade Russia. Only one man's ever conquered it, and Russia wasn't even a unified state at the time.

The Russian occupation of Eastern Europe also cost millions of lives, but if we'd managed to win a war against the USSR we at least wouldn't have had to endure half of Europe being taken back to the Dark Age thanks to the wonders of Communism. And I am well aware of the do not invade Russia rule, but I would hope that the allies would have learnt from the failings of Napoleon and the Third Reich (although the US also used their land army in Asia, which is also advised against, so maybe my faith is misplaced). Also you wouldn't necessarily need to invade Russia since you may be able to win the war in Eastern Europe.

Russia would have won, resulting in even more (if not all) of mainland Europe, and possibly Japan under the Soviets. The Russian army wasn't the best equipped, but it was HUGE, and it would have been very hard for the US to effectively attack Russia across both an ocean and most of a continent even if their had been a public will for another long, ugly war.

I disagree that Russia would have won - of all the major countries involved in WW2 the US is more or less the only one that isn't in complete ruins by this stage, they are better armed and have a more powerful industrial base. I don't think it would have been easy and may even have ended in some kind of stalemate, but I don't think the Russians would just completely destroyed the entire US army and whats left of the British commonwealth. Also the allies could have just gone round the Caucasus if they really needed to and capture all the Russian oil fields behind them - that would effectively be war over if the Russians couldn't recapture them. I do agree that the people probably wouldn't have stood for another war though, so it would have been difficult to start one.

Patton was prepping to roll into Russia right after WWII ended, and strongly advised doing so. At that point we had nukes, which no other nation had, and an army that was still strong and ready to go, along with a strong supply chain through Europe and Japan, access to Russia from both sides, allies in China, India, and the Middle East along with Europe, and a number of other benefits. Russia had just lost well over a million troops and was both undersupplied with an army that was stretched from Moscow to Berlin. It's surprisingly likely that, had we invaded Russia very early on and been smart about it (i.e. not bumrushing in there in the middle of the winter...) the entirety of the Cold War could have been prevented. But yes, going into yet another prolonged war right after getting out of one might not have been the most popular idea at the time. Unfortunately, that's all just speculation at this point, and also not exactly on topic.

So, back on topic, I'll just leave this here.

http://sharpwriter.deviantart.com/art/Teddy-Roosevelt-VS-Bigfoot-198525028?q=gallery%3Asharpwriter%2F179817&qo=17

The real reason that Big Foot hasn't ever been found? Teddy stopped their conspiracy to take over the world single handedly. If it wasn't for him we would all be speaking Bigfootese by now.

 

[Tsaba]

Dwight D. Eisenhower, honestly a great man of his time.

 

[halfeclipse]

Because it would have cost millions of lives and would have failed miserably. One of the laws of war is: you DO NOT invade Russia. Only one man's ever conquered it, and Russia wasn't even a unified state at the time.

The Russian occupation of Eastern Europe also cost millions of lives, but if we'd managed to win a war against the USSR we at least wouldn't have had to endure half of Europe being taken back to the Dark Age thanks to the wonders of Communism. And I am well aware of the do not invade Russia rule, but I would hope that the allies would have learnt from the failings of Napoleon and the Third Reich (although the US also used their land army in Asia, which is also advised against, so maybe my faith is misplaced). Also you wouldn't necessarily need to invade Russia since you may be able to win the war in Eastern Europe.

Russia would have won, resulting in even more (if not all) of mainland Europe, and possibly Japan under the Soviets. The Russian army wasn't the best equipped, but it was HUGE, and it would have been very hard for the US to effectively attack Russia across both an ocean and most of a continent even if their had been a public will for another long, ugly war.

I disagree that Russia would have won - of all the major countries involved in WW2 the US is more or less the only one that isn't in complete ruins by this stage, they are better armed and have a more powerful industrial base. I don't think it would have been easy and may even have ended in some kind of stalemate, but I don't think the Russians would just completely destroyed the entire US army and whats left of the British commonwealth. Also the allies could have just gone round the Caucasus if they really needed to and capture all the Russian oil fields behind them - that would effectively be war over if the Russians couldn't recapture them. I do agree that the people probably wouldn't have stood for another war though, so it would have been difficult to start one.

Taking the oil fields in the Caucasus wouldn't have knocked the USSR out. Demolishing them back in 1940 would have sucked, but because of the threat from Germany, most of their production resources at Baku and so forth (machinery, workers etc) were relocated to other oil fields. By 1945 it was generating less then half what it was doing pre-war


The US was an ocean and most of a continent away, without a stable base to work from,in a climate they were NOT at all equipped to deal with, and would have been going up against much larger army. If there was the public will amongst Americans, it may have been possible. That will didn't exist.


It also wouldn't have helped Eastern Europe in the least and would probably have been worse. The cost of such a war would be massive even without the likely use of the atom bomb by one or both sides, with out any real idea of the consequences (For example the US thought the radiation would vanish quickly, their plans for a Japan invasion called for troops to be sent in to a nuked city 72 hours later.)

 

[Neverhoodian]

His treatment of the Germans after WW2 was rather horrid. He wanted to kill everyone.

Every leader in WW2 was a fucking scumbag, on both sides, and every one of them did their fair share of atrocities, be it executing jews, sending jews to Germany to be executed, torturing prisoners.... Which is why it pisses me off when one of them is portrayed as a hero. People need to fucking wake up and realize neither Churchill nor Hitler were heros.

EDIT: Just an example of what a fucking nutjob Churchill was: after the second world war he said that if one day England found itself in an economic slump simular to the one Germany found themselves in before Hitler took over, he would want a man like Hitler to lead Britain. Lovely.

Spoiler

Perhaps it's my pro-Churchill bias, but color me skeptical. This is presumably the same Churchill that denounced Stalin's suggestion at the Tehran Conference to liquidate 50,000-100,000 German staff officers as "the cold-blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country?"

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Conference
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=879
http://www.history.co.uk/explore-history/ww2/nuremberg.html

Churchill wasn't perfect by a long shot, but I wouldn't call him a "fucking scumbag."

Back on-topic, I'd say Harry Truman. Though widely regarded as a "country hick" at the time, Truman was in fact very intelligent and insightful (he knew the biographies and policies of every U.S. President before him). He fought for civil rights, abolished racial segregation in the military, helped Europe get back on its feet with the Marshall Plan, and he wasn't afraid to cross party lines if need be. He also put that posturing buffoon MacArthur in his place.

 

[Timmey]

Gona go with Gladstone, a lot of reform and extremely popular, great leader