I think nobody has yet voted for the greatest leader of the history!I vote for Joseph Stalin ,I find that his five year plan is very ideal!He was great as because of him USSR became superpower .

Well, if you ignore the millions of dead people then you're right.

I know100 % somebody is going to say this,the millions of dead people died mostly of FAMINE,is the kulakhs (???Stuffs like that forget to spell) who destroy the farms Stalin was not to blame while the small proportion (not really small numbers) died for opposing him.He is the most creative leader his 5 years plan for industrialising sounds interesting,and worked (but again the farming failed because of Kulakhs ).Russia became superpower of 5 years plan that sounds great....



By the way u havent vote for ur favourtie leader

:confused:

Yeah uncle Jozef was a great leader, just before WW2 he killed of most of his senior army staff, resulting in a couple of million more dying on the soviet side, but who cares, becouse after all:

'1 death is a tragedy, 1 million deaths is a statistic' - Jozef Stalin

I perfer Hitler over Stalin, at least he made the German army look smart ;)

I can't blame Fayadi for thinking Josef Stalin was the greatest leader, I mean, after all, what else are they going to teach you in a communist-state-run school?

It really depends upon how you define "great", let alone "the greatest". It is, like many of the other polls that plagues us in these times (;)), a very subjective question. It will require some consideration on my behalf, so I'll sleep on it eventually, and edit it in later this morning.

Now onto the matter of Iosef Vissarionvich Dzugashvili, also known as Koba, or as Stalin. Now, in my opinion, greatness is not necessarily to do with the moral character of the individual, as there are very few individuals in the course of human history who aspired to and achieved great office who were paragons of virtue. So, I class Hitler and Stalin as great, undoubtedly, but at the same time as thoroughly repugnant, despicable and evil.

Now, onto the secondary matter of Fayadi's proposition that Stalin was the greatest leader of history. Firstly, on the matter of the five year plan being "ideal", one cannot really understand what is being said by this. That you think it ideal, or think it good; that you think it worked efficiently; that you think it justified in some context - all of these strike one as potential meanings, so some qualification of it will enable better comprehension of the argument.

His role in the forcible transformation of the USSR into a superpower is undeniable, but the methods employed, and the eventual fatal cost on the nation and the system do subtract from it.

Millions died under the reign of Stalin, and millions were imprisoned, and/or deported to Siberia and the gulags. A nation was terrorized for decades, and the shadow of totalitarianism fell across much of the globe. All of these are undeniable facts, and are supported by evidence both Western and Soviet, to the extent of testimony from the very instruments of his devastation.

The famines killed millions, and were a result of deliberate policy, as was the extermination of the kulaks (de-kulakisation). The harm and death inflicted by the Chekists at the direct orders of Stalin vastly outweighs the effect of any destruction of property by the doomed kulaks themselves. It lead to a huge amount of resentment in the countryside, particularly the Ukraine. Consider how the advancing German forces were initially welcomed as liberators and strewn with garlands of flowers by the populace.

The records and evidence show Stalin was to blame, as he was for Katin forest.

Then we have the terror of the 1930s, as first the party and then the army and general populace were ruthlessly purged. The show trials of the vast majority of Stalin's former Bolshevik comrades comes to mind, but they were all conspiring with Germany and the capitalists:rolleyes:

On the charge of him being the most creative leader, he was personally responsible for the stifling of the outburst of creativity that initially followed the Revolution, instead implementing a policy of socialist realism.

But I believe this was more aimed at his creation of the Five Year plan. I hate to ruin the illusion of paternal Comrade Stalin diligently working on the myriad economic details of the construction of the modern state, whilst thoughtfully puffing his pipe, but it was not a work of his hand.
It was thought up by others, based upon the theories of previous individuals, and Stalin only did what he was good at: ruthlessly implement it by destroying whoever was in his way , real or supposed.

The industrialisation plan was partway successful, but when balanced against his destruction of agriculture, and his near disastrous actions in destroying the officer corps of the Red Army, it is a minor thing.
Stalin is in the gallery of great world leaders, but for other reasons: his ability to seize power, and hold it, destroying all opposition, and for his profile as a world leader in tumultuous times (the latter was mainly based upon his taking credit for the works of others, mainly the Soviet people.)


So that is why the argument presented that Stalin is the greatest leader of all time is fundamentally factually flawed, and based upon incorrect premises.

Returning to the original proposition, it is not an easily answered question: hundreds of names come to mind - Napoleon, Asoka, Augustus, Bismarck are but a few. History does not lend itself to easy generalisations.

edit

UKK. His diplomatic actons... Ok nobody here really knows wtf I'm talking about so I propose Augustus.
He really chewed the Ceasars empire into shape.

(btw, excellent and most creative comment, Simon DS! :goodjob: )

Fayadi, you gauge power wrongly.

A great nation is not rated on military power,
Armed force is a tool of the state.

Real power is the nations culture and the people's growth and sucess, not to mention happiness and pride.

Stalin's reign of doom maybe made the USSR into a powerhouse (for a while).

But is was done at a tremdous cost,of life and no matter how you argue that the benefits were good,
the massive human suffering stains Stalins cursed name for all time.

Stalin ruled with fear and torture (carried out personally sometimes)
And lived in a world of paranoia and fear for his own life.

Hardly the hallmarks of a great leader...

Great leaders, Fayadi?
Think of Simon Bolivar,
think of Martin Luther King,
maybe peaceful Ghandi,
or the inspired FDR,
The learned Hummurabi
Julius Gaius Caesar,
or wily Von Bismarck...
They are great leaders whose hands were free of the blood of millions of thier own people. But still weilded great POWER.

A nation with great power weilds not a sword of iron but a mind of compassion and knowledge...

Also a great people do not live with the spectre of terror hanging over them...:(

edit

What about the best military leader?
Zjukov was the real reason WWII was won anyway, Stalin was very ignorant, a typical example of how power can consume your mind. WW2 would have been won more easily if he did'nt execute almost all his generals.

Originally posted by atawa
:confused:

I perfer Hitler over Stalin, at least he made the German army look smart ;)

Yep those smartly dressed Wehrmacht and Waffen SS, butchering countless people, Hmmmm.

I can see it now..
Paris 1940...
"Our homes have been crushed by a German Panzer army!"
"My family have been fragged by a Einsatz SS platoon!"
"Hey, but look at those uniforms, very nice!"

Originally posted by Mikoyan
What about the best military leader?
Zjukov was the real reason WWII was won anyway, Stalin was very ignorant, a typical example of how power can consume your mind. WW2 would have been won more easily if he did'nt execute almost all his generals.

Yeah, Dictators are dumb.

In WW2 the Generals made all the best moves.
Not the power-mongering despots...Adolf and Joe couldn't run a charity shop! :lol:

Originally posted by Adebisi
UKK blows dude...

Sure, he was good to have in power but he didn't have any remarkable leadership skills whatsoever...

At least we did not live in a 'F.S.S.R.' even a day...
I think it demands skills...

Originally posted by Mikoyan
What about the best military leader?
Zjukov was the real reason WWII was won anyway, Stalin was very ignorant, a typical example of how power can consume your mind. WW2 would have been won more easily if he did'nt execute almost all his generals.

The little things what I know about Zukov are really saying that he was a terrific (I hope that means very good:o)
comrade, but Stalin /#(¤ed the whole thing. :crazyeyes

(EDIT: )
"Our homes have been crushed by a German Panzer army!"
"My family have been fragged by a Einsatz SS platoon!"
"Hey, but look at those uniforms, very nice!"
ROTFLMAO! It's a good thing that we have humorous people in CFC! :goodjob:

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Hardly the hallmarks of a great leader...

Great leaders, Fayadi?
Think of Simon Bolivar,
think of Martin Luther King,
maybe peaceful Ghandi,
or the inspired FDR,
The learned Hummurabi
Julius Gaius Caesar,
or wily Von Bismarck...
They are great leaders whose hands were free of the blood of millions of thier own people. But still weilded great POWER. ( Just one small point, Julius Caesar's Gallic campaigns were particularly bloody, just that it took place so long ago, only few could even remember them.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I can't blame Fayadi for thinking Josef Stalin was the greatest leader, I mean, after all, what else are they going to teach you in a communist-state-run school?


This is a state of short sightedness and narrow mindedness,China is no communist,they are capitalism who call themselves Communist.To be frank I was not born in China ,I am Indonesian Born Chinese who study in Singapore,I study history,I have been China only ONCE (Shanghai I luv it)u have no basis i am brainwashed.Stalin is great if not for him,USSR will not become a major player in international.USSR Must have a big military,it is such a big country which touches border with 12 countries and what it have border problems with 12 countries?
REMEMBER IF NOT FOR STALIN ,GERMANY WILL NOT BE DEFEATED
I am talking about favourite leader,all of u has been saying Stalin is bad,u all havent vote for ur own.I fav Stalin because USSR became superpower in such a short time.


Stalin's Uniform with his generals was cool in "Big Three" conference in Yalta

Originally posted by Fayadi
This is a state of short sightedness and narrow mindedness,China is no communist,they are capitalism who call themselves Communist.To be frank I was not born in China ,I am Indonesian Born Chinese who study in Singapore,I study history,I have been China only ONCE (Shanghai I luv it)u have no basis i am brainwashed.Stalin is great if not for him,USSR will not become a major player in international.USSR Must have a big military,it is such a big country which touches border with 12 countries and what it have border problems with 12 countries?
REMEMBER IF NOT FOR STALIN ,GERMANY WILL NOT BE DEFEATED
I am talking about favourite leader,all of u has been saying Stalin is bad,u all havent vote for ur own.I fav Stalin because USSR became superpower in such a short time.

Stalin's Uniform with his generals was cool in "Big Three" conference in Yalta Wherea China may no longer be Communist, those who are in power still subscribe to Communism, otherwise they would have no ideological basis for their undemocratic control of the country. And they'll do whatever necessary to keep that control, Communist or not. They are totalitarianist, more than communist.

And FYI, Russia had ALWAYS been a big international player since the days of Napoleon or even earlier. Where did you think Napoleon got his first major disastrous defeat? Who did you think Germany feared prior to WW1 (encirclement by hostile nations to the West AND the East)? Tsarist Russia was industrializing well prior to the Soviets (it was the 6th largest industrial producer and one with a very high growth rate). Were it not for WW1, Tsarist Russia would never have fallen and the Commies would never have come to power.

Russia during Soviet Union can be able to confront the first world superpower , I didnt know too much about Russia history but I know 1 thing for sure Russia is well more prepared for Germany in WW2 than WW1.Russia has great chances of falling to Germany if not for Stalin industrialising idea
BY THE WAY VOTE FOR UR FAV LEADER!

Originally posted by Juize
UKK. His diplomatic actons... Ok nobody here really knows wtf I'm talking about so I propose Augustus.
He really chewed the Ceasars empire into shape.

(btw, excellent and most creative comment, Simon DS! :goodjob: )
Ah, UKK our only true dictator...
Well Stalin was kinda powerful in the fact that he died of natural causes. Natural causes meaning really natural causes not natural causes of Soviet politics.
My vote for most powerful leader goes for Innocentius III, a pope.

beckenbauer, lead germany to a lot of victories as player and won wc 90 as manager. now he is the president for bayern münchen. i hope you understood the underlying meaning of this post.

Julius Nyerere of Tanzania! The country went independent same time as Kenya and Uganda. THose countries went capitalist, Nyerere went for agrarian socialism. He also emphasized literacy in Swahili for the 140 different language tribes of his nation. He translated Juliu Ceasar into Swahili. He sent in the army that beat Idi Amin despite no funding from outside nations. The result, 30 years later, was that Tanzania was self sufficient in food production while most other African countries who had pressed their farmers into capital development faced famine and food subsidies. ALso, Tanzania remains a haven of peace while tribal fighting over resources has demolished most of its neighbors. Today, in Tanzania, Nyerere is scoffed by youngbloods who want mo'money right away and cant believe there isnt more "infrastructure" in the country. I like to point out to them that they would still be poor, they would just hate each other alot more...

I've been to Kenya, and theyre doing just fine.

Originally posted by Juize


ROTFLMAO! It's a good thing that we have humorous people in CFC! :goodjob:

I'm sorry I do not speak USA abbreviation talk!

What the hell does ROTFLMAO mean?

Anyone?:confused:

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Just one small point, Julius Caesar's Gallic campaigns were particularly bloody, just that it took place so long ago, only few could even remember them.

Being from a region in Scotland that used to be called "Antium" by the resident Romans, I am quite aware of my Roman History.

I am also aware of JG Caesar's methods, but he's not any less bloody than any other warlord of the time.

He didn't kill millions of roman citizens in gas chambers or death factories like the "heroic" Stalin, or Adolf, did he?

Depends on what you see, really.:rolleyes:

I vote for Alexander the Great (i think this is Indisputable).

Other great leaders could be Philip II of Spain or his father: Charles I of Spain (Charles V of Germany), they constructed the Spanish empire.

Joespaniel, if you were moved enough to write that Kenya is "doing fine" how about including some details of your visit? Were you staying in expensive hotels on a paid safari where you would be treated like Young Buddha and not allowed to suffer, were you doing peace corps work in a small village far from paved roads where they are too poor to complain, or were you beaten and robbed by twelve year olds on the streets of Nairobi so they could have money to buy more gasoline to sniff?

Originally posted by CurtSibling


Being from a region in Scotland that used to be called "Antium" by the resident Romans, I am quite aware of my Roman History.

I am also aware of JG Caesar's methods, but he's not any less bloody than any other warlord of the time.

He didn't kill millions of roman citizens in gas chambers or death factories like the "heroic" Stalin, or Adolf, did he?

Depends on what you see, really.:rolleyes:


Stalin?Gas Chamber never heard that?I guess it is Hitler 's way of killing,Stalin kills only his opponents........Millions died of Famine not by killing under Stalin,If not for Stalin USSR will not be superpower ,If not for USSR strength ,Germany will not be defeated,nobody credit him for that,USSR saves the world!

Originally posted by Fayadi
Stalin?Gas Chamber never heard that?I guess it is Hitler 's way of killing,Stalin kills only his opponents........Millions died of Famine not by killing under Stalin,If not for Stalin USSR will not be superpower ,If not for USSR strength ,Germany will not be defeated,nobody credit him for that,USSR saves the world!

Once again Fayadi's wonderful Chinese Communist-run school has taught him pro-communal rhetoric.

The USSR never saved the world, and if it had "saved" the world from Hitler, it would have been Stalin to lead a campaign through Europe, and he would have been successful.

ROTFLMAO = Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off

What about George Washington? He did lead the Americans to establishing a new country, and this country is today's (supposedly) only surviving world superpower. If not Washington, then Abraham Lincoln, who united the South and the North. If his leadership wasn't there, there may be a CSA and a USA today. Think of how strange that would be! (And the consequences on world powers...)

~~
RyanR75
Go USA!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Fayadi
Stalin?Gas Chamber never heard that?I guess it is Hitler 's way of killing,Stalin kills only his opponents........Millions died of Famine not by killing under Stalin,If not for Stalin USSR will not be superpower ,If not for USSR strength ,Germany will not be defeated,nobody credit him for that,USSR saves the world!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Once again Fayadi's wonderful Chinese Communist-run school has taught him pro-communal rhetoric.

The USSR never saved the world, and if it had "saved" the world from Hitler, it would have been Stalin to lead a campaign through Europe, and he would have been successful."

Actually, what he said made sense, in a rather perverse manner, and I think those were "pro-communist" values rather than "pro-communal".

So, grasshoppers, let us look at what the man said:

1.) Stalin did not use gas chambers, Hitler did.
This is correct, Stalin had people shot. No problems there.

2.)Stalin kills only his opponents.
Again, this is correct, in a perversely twisted way. From the perspective of Joe Stalin, they were his opponents, if only in his own dark mind. Thus, even though his paranoia had no basis whatsoever in reality, the notion makes a small modicum of sense. Most dictators kill their the opponents, not their friends. Hitler did, even though they were undeserving.
So what we have here is a case of some garbled sense coming through

3.)Millions died of Famine not by killing under Stalin
Millions did die only of famine. Millions more died of shooting or other means. So this to is correct in a sense, but it was probably not intended to be taken this way, but rather the one we have seen before:rolleyes:

4.)If not for Stalin USSR will not be superpower
This is arguable, but Stalin did play a role in the industrialisation of the USSR, and in WW2, his staying out of matters military, as compared to Hitler did play a role. So this is true to a certain limited extent.

5.)If not for USSR strength ,Germany will not be defeated
This is a matter that has been heavily debated, by historians, and on these boards. In short, the role of the USSR was very important in the defeat of Germany, so there is again some unintended hidden merit.

6.)USSR saves the world!
This is very shaky upon first appearences, but it can be twisted to suit any meaning you like. If the defeat of Germany counts as saving the world, then perhaps. My own, very twisted interpretation is that the USSR did save the world. By collapsing, and doing so RELATIVELY peacefully.

My point? He may write this, and we condemn it as we know that a lot of it is on shaky historical grounds. But, if you can take the most vehment ideological rhetoric possible, and look at it in isolation and objectively, then we are better able to understand WHY Fayadi and others still think this.

(Warning: The above analysis is the product of an evil, bored mind and a darkhearted bastard. Evil Enterprises Inc. takes no responsbility for the veracity of the above comments.)

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Once again Fayadi's wonderful Chinese Communist-run school has taught him pro-communal rhetoric.

The USSR never saved the world, and if it had "saved" the world from Hitler, it would have been Stalin to lead a campaign through Europe, and he would have been successful.

Communist what Communist ?I dun live in China(but plans to) and only been there once.I am Indonesian Born Chinese who study in Singapore,sick of hearing communist run school..Too narrowminded!? I dun like the Chinese govt,i find it strange i am talking about my fav leader as Stalin and u jumped to moron conclusion I am being brainwashed?Strange i guess....Things are not as simple as u think and i find u r quick to underestimate people..Rmshape sorry i find u r stupid and too short sighted of thinking me being brainwashed,u dont even kniw what Chinese schools like,what they taught,i dont even know too ,u r talking with ur wild opinion i guess.

Originally posted by Fayadi

Communist what Communist ?.

Fayadi,
I hope you will learn more about China once you live there a while.

I find your views on Stalin and his sinister career to be odd.

And please if you do not under stand Europe's history do not make crazy statements about it!

Stalin did not save the world! Come ON!
Don't be so reckless with your words...

Millions of dead Russians did the real job of stopping the Third Reich's eastern agenda, not Stalin.
He just killed off people, He was only a political despot.

The USA and UK along with 49 allied nations (including China) also played the role of stopping the Axis's plans.

So don't be tempted to get carried away in the "epic" histroy, remember the human struggle.

The countless acts of silent heroism from civilians in occupied Europe,
The hidden agony of millions of Jews, Disabled, Gays, Kulaks, Gypsies, and all the others cursed by the evil dictators (like your beloved Stalin)
The boy soldiers from Allied and Axis sides, not to mention thousands of young kids killed in Germany, pressed into service by a desperate despot.
The Merchant saliors, civil engineers, nurses, padres, all the non-combatants...

War ain't just about glorious soldiers, Fayadi.
Remember war affects the real people too.

PS
This post is not designed to offend you, but educate you further.
If you choose to answer it with rhetoric and anger, I will just take my dissapointment in you and say no more.

Hope you get my point...:goodjob:

Come on CurtSibbling thought we are friends?I wont be angry in these sort of stuffs,I am a happy go lucky person,i was angered by keep on hearing people calling me brainwashed by govt and i feel that they are underestimating that Chinese people are too stupid to be brainwashed,if they think Chinese are so easily brainwashed,why many chinese students dont like the govt,stupid right?I listen to views curt ,I NEVER answer with "rhetoric and anger" . dont think bad of me curt ,I find u r nice person :goodjob: ,and a hope a nice person wont think bad of me and we can always debate professionally even though there are disagreements

Regarding USSR saves the world,I think I have put that wrongly,USSR plays a major role in saving the world,ok now
if u think the evil superpower of the world has defeated the good superpower,what makes u think the evil superpower wont conquer the world if nobody could be able to resist them,

Anyway get my point a great leader no need to be a caring,loving one.Alexander the great,Gengkish Khan they all ruthless too
Of course I dont like Stalin's way of killing or harsh rule that millions died,I like his positive side and contribution ,no leader is perfect .A favourite or a great leader is liked because of their positive side not negative side

It must be Alexander The Great - who else is known as 'The Great'?

"When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer"
- anon. (attr. Milton)

Julius Caesar was once asked about the world's great leaders:
"To which Caesar made answer seriously, 'For my part, I had rather be the first man among these fellows, than the second man in Rome.' It is said that another time, when free from business in Spain, after reading some part of the history of Alexander, he sat a great while very thoughtful, and at last burst out into tears. His friends were surprised, and asked him the reason of it. 'Do you think,' said he, 'I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable?'"
- Plutarch

Alexander the Great died at the age of 33. He had conquered the known world at an age where the more substandard kind of ruler has only just had the notion of going into politics.

No contest, really.
:king:

If Alexander why not Ghengis? Alexander was an aristocrat who inherited a large well trained army to take over the the middle east. Ghengis was a nomad who created an army and conquered much more than Alexander ever could have.

some years ago a man from hungary came to my school to talk about his experiences from ussr prison camps in siberia. he was a partisan fighting against the germans during ww2, but when the war ended the russian sent him to sibiria for preparing a american invasion of soviet. he was just allowed to sleep two hours per 24 h and was close to die many times, which many of the other prisoners did. he was finally set free after ten years, not because of any legal reason, it was beacuse stalin has died.

Well, yes, Genghis Khan was so successful because he revolutionised the way wars were fought. He moved so quickly that he tended to arrive at the next town before they received news that the previous town had been sacked. It was large-scale rushing tactics. All members of the Mongol army were mounted, and his army would often hold as many as 250,000 men. He also never attacked the most powerful cities until he had a crushing majority of fighters, and his spy network had sounded out weaknesses.
He was a good diplomat, obviously as he united all the warring Mongolian tribes and chieftains by the age of 25.
At the end, his empire stretched from Poland to China.
Genghis Khan's family was Mongolian semi-aristocracy as well, but was brought down by local trouble while Genghis was still young.
One of the greats, to be sure, but he lived 'til he was sixty. What would Alexander have done with another thirty years?
I'd give him a top 3, personally. :)

Animepornstar,
My father, aunt, grandma, grandad and great grandma were sent to the Siberian camps by that wonderful humanitarian Joe Stalin. That's what you got for being a Pole with a lot of land (a gift from the Tzar to my great-grandfather, a long, interesting and unbelievable-to-many story.)
My family have no love whatsoever for that sicko. And if you even thought of naming a child 'Joe', well.....

My only problem with Gehngis and Alex is that their accomplishments didn't last.

As far as Stalin goes, imagine his success if he hadn't gutted the army and sat paralyzed for weeks after the Germans invaded. He was fool enough to trust Hitler and cripple his defenses. Had Hitler not been such an idiot the Soviet Union would likely have fallen in 41 or 42. As far as the Soviet Union saving the world, they helped. Often they helped behind the wheel of GM trucks, behind the guns of Sherman tanks, and with millions of tons of other supplies. They did zero in the Pacific. They were one of the big three, and made a major contribution, but they did not save the world. All of the combined nations of the Allies saved the world.

I cast a vote for Churchill. All logic should have told the English to make a peace once France fell, but Churchill hung in there and rallied his people to fight on against long odds. He was not fooled by Stalin and kept the 1066 string unbroken.

if u think the evil superpower of the world has defeated the good superpower,what makes u think the evil superpower wont conquer the world if nobody could be able to resist them,

If, by this you mean you are worried about America conquering the world I think you are mistaken. If the U.S. wanted to conquer the world, the end of WWII would have been the best time. We had the atomic bomb, the world's largest standing army, Complete naval mastery, the strongest air force in the world, and an industrial heart that was building half of everything made in the world. With all of this the U.S. went through a massive demobilization. The U.S. also did not make Japan into the next 4 states. American troops, while stationed in Western Europe were not an occupying force and never put down any uprisings. Americans also never blockaded a city during peace time in an attempt to subvert it.

Volley back with your list of American attempts at world domination in Asia if you care to, but answer the question as to why the US chose those spots over any other to wage a war of world conquest. Would not wars of conquest have been better fought in places with developed resources? Those wars were attempts to stop the spead of communism. They may or may not have been historically neccessary, but that was the reason that they were fought.

Better the US than Communists, any day of the week. Shame we didn't go after them after WWII, the western nations are just too nice, I reckon.
Anyway, think in terms of Civ3, what would you rather have, Democracy or Communism?

Originally posted by knowltok
My only problem with Gehngis and Alex is that their accomplishments didn't last.

I cast a vote for Churchill. All logic should have told the English to make a peace once France fell, but Churchill hung in there and rallied his people to fight on against long odds. He was not fooled by Stalin and kept the 1066 string unbroken.


As a Brit I have to say the only quality Winston had a leader was his damn stubborness.
He didn't give in to Hitler...Perhaps we should have let Stalin and Adolf blow each other to smithereens...

But I thank the thousands of British military personnel for our victory over the Third Reich.
Not a upper-class toff who slaughtered thousands of men in the First World war.

Churchill once shot a soldier in the foot while posing for a PR photo! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Fayadi
Come on CurtSibbling thought we are friends?I wont be angry in these sort of stuffs,I am a happy go lucky person,


Hey, Come on, Fayadi!
I for one have never said I consider you in any way un-intelligent,
How many people on the forums can speak Chinese, not many.
So don't put yourself down.

I have never had any problem with your posts, in the past!

I just want to convety some truths about the way WW2 and The soviet era is viewed by myself and many Europeans.
We can have a debate without fear of any hostility, This goes for your good self and all the CFC people.
Your last post shows that you can debate well, when you are focussed on the subject.

So no worries, Fayadi.
We are just debating, No bad vibes!

Keep posting and I look forward to more good discussions!

Thanks for the perspective on Churchill. I will admit that he had his faults. His constant love of operations on the periphery<sp> being one of them.

However, I'd have to say that if the British had made peace with the Germans and the Germans would have had a free shot at the russians the results would not have been pretty for the British in the long run. Germany may well have been able to conquer the world at that point. This may be a bit extreme, but consider a Nazi Germany that had conquered much of Russia and had forced the UK into peace. Three powers in the world, US, Germany, and what would be left of the UK. Not a pretty picture.

If you don't want to give overmuch credit to Winston, fine, but my hat's off to the British people who hung in there and carried on the fight alone while the Americans were mired in isolationism and the Soviets played a dangerous game of wait and see.

I have no love of Conservative (particularly British) politicians, but I have no doubt that without the defiant leadership Churchill provided during the darkest days of WW2 the course of the war would have been much different.

There are many things I dislike about Churchill, not least that he viewed Australians as a lesser species tainted by convict origins :rolleyes: and that his half baked idea of a Dardenelles campaign in W1 resulted in the waste of thousands of Allied lives.

In WW2 he tried to divert AIF (Australian Imperial Forces) Divisions from returning to Australia (after the North Africa campaign) to defend Australia from the Japanese - Burma and ultimately India were more important in his view.

Despite this I give credit where it is due, he managed to rally his nation when things looked hopeless - the greatest leader of all time? Depends what the criteria are.

Originally posted by knowltok


If, by this you mean you are worried about America conquering the world I think you are mistaken. If the U.S. wanted to conquer the world, the end of WWII would have been the best time. We had the atomic bomb, the world's largest standing army, Complete naval mastery, the strongest air force in the world, and an industrial heart that was building half of everything made in the world. With all of this the U.S. went through a massive demobilization. The U.S. also did not make Japan into the next 4 states. American troops, while stationed in Western Europe were not an occupying force and never put down any uprisings. Americans also never blockaded a city during peace time in an attempt to subvert it.

Volley back with your list of American attempts at world domination in Asia if you care to, have been better fought in places with developed resources? Those wars were attempts to stop the spead of communism. Thebut answer the question as to why the US chose those spots over any other to wage a war of world conquest. Would not wars of conquest y may or may not have been historically neccessary, but that was the reason that they were fought.


Nono u misunderstood me....I am not talking about U.S.A .If Axis won the war against allies,what makes u think they wont conquer the world,so ,what i mean is Allies are the good superpower and Axis are the evil superpower.If Allies are defeated,Axis will definitely have an attempt to conquer the world,because no great power will be able to defend or resist them!What a misunderstand

If allies are defeated,world will be conquered by Axis,proof?
South American countries are completely unprepared for war
and they are lucky not to be attacked by Axis or Japan
Africa was so easy to capture by the Axis

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon


And FYI, Russia had ALWAYS been a big international player since the days of Napoleon or even earlier. Where did you think Napoleon got his first major disastrous defeat?

Tsarist Russia was industrializing well prior to the Soviets (it was the 6th largest industrial producer and one with a very high growth rate). Were it not for WW1, Tsarist Russia would never have fallen and the Commies would never have come to power.


Just a few remarks about that ...

Well, as far as I know, Napoleon hasn't been defeated in Russia, at least on the battlefield. The main battle, Borodino, resulted in the destruction of about half of the russian army, and 25% of the french army. The russian had to retreat and leave moscow, which was a disgrace. But the beast was wounded and eventually bled to death...

On the other hand, I don't understand why a lot of people tend to say "Were it not for ..." (Don't take it personnaly) to explain that the world wouldn't have been the same "were it not for..."
What do we know about that. Some people have said that napoleon lost his army in russia because the buttons of his soldiers' uniforms were made of lead, and lead breaks up at 40 degrees below zero.
Those kind of explanation only reveal one single aspect of the problems.
I say the commies would have come anyway, just maybe ten years later, maybe one month later, maybe five years sooner, because WWI is just one aspect of the russian revolution.

Well anyway, if you are interested both in napoleonian wars and those kind of cause to consequence assertions and problems related to historical topics, I strongly recommend the reading of War and Peace by Tolstoï. Really thrilling.

Sorry for the misunderstanding Fayedi. You are of course correct, the Axis would have tried to conquer/dominate the rest of the world. I read an interesting story about how Germany won and the interaction between Ghandi and a German Field Marshall.

Mid East?The dumbest human race in the world,promotes terrorism,destroys human achievements out of jealosy,Guess what i heard some Mid East condems East ASIANS!Muslim is a peaceful race but they turn the image.if not for their oil ,they will be probably be useless craps

I think you are on dangerous ground here. You may want to watch your step when describing an entire race. :(

Just a friendly word of warning. Perhaps I am overreacting, though I have not gone so far as to report you or anything.

I don't think you're overreacting ...

I'm trying right now to prevent myself from overreacting ...
AAhhh!
It's tough ...

Some people just don't know what they're talking about and should just shut up...
"Muslim is a peaceful race" I wonder what he means when sayin that ... "destryoing human achievement out of jealousy" ... Ah!ah! this one is great!
Stupidity is everywhere ... in middle east and where fayadi lives.

:lol: fayadi has been complaining about others short sightedness and narrow mindedness and then he is coming with this racism.


Mid East?The dumbest human race in the world
how many arabs do you know?

Guess what i heard some Mid East condems East ASIANS!
aren´t the indonesians muslims too? some of them condems east asians and therefor are they the dumbest human race?

Muslim is a peaceful race
are the christians a race too?:lol:

back to the topic, if axis had conquer the world, how whould they be able to controll it? don´t think that the german population was large enough.

The Middle East produces the worst terrorists? Ha! Unlikely.

How many people have Japanese terrorists killed? About 50.

How many people have Libyan terrorists killed? About 500.

How many people have Saudi Arabian terrorists killed? About 5,000

How many people has the People's Republic of China killed? - 65,000,000

Japan, Libya, and Saudi Arabia are specks of dirt compared to Chinese Communists.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
How many people has the People's Republic of China killed? - 65,000,000.Proof? If you are talking bout the calamities following Mao's dumb projects, I don't think the figures are that high. Cos China's population in the 50s was only a few hundreds of millions. We'll never know for sure though.

Originally posted by geake
On the other hand, I don't understand why a lot of people tend to say "Were it not for ..." (Don't take it personnaly) to explain that the world wouldn't have been the same "were it not for..."
What do we know about that. Some people have said that napoleon lost his army in russia because the buttons of his soldiers' uniforms were made of lead, and lead breaks up at 40 degrees below zero.
Those kind of explanation only reveal one single aspect of the problems.We all have nothing better to do anyway. What-if postulations are quite thrilling in a remote sort of way. Maybe you're right - we're all just wasting time just speculating on facts that had already been set in the stone of history.
What I am getting at, was that ultimately, Napoleon's Russian campaign led to a massive bleeding of the military manpower available to him. Just as the Germans would find out in WW2 150 years or so later.

Originally posted by Fayadi
Mid East?The dumbest human race in the world,promotes terrorism,destroys human achievements out of jealosy,Guess what i heard some Mid East condems East ASIANS!Muslim is a peaceful race but they turn the image.if not for their oil ,they will be probably be useless craps
They will be very easy to conquer either
so the rest (strong power)should be allies country I'd advise you in the strongest terms possible to desist fr using such terms about a whole group of peoples about whom you probably don't know much about. Not even experts of the Mid-East would dare to summarize the ppls of the Mid-east as such.

And if you're claiming your poor command of English has led to misunderstanding and miscommunication of your postings, I have only to say that for someone who has been educated in Singapore, your command of the English language is not on par with the national standard here and you shld brush up on it. ;)

And before you go 'wild', I'll tell you I am from Malaysia and had only come to Singapore for my university education (in English) a few years ago and prior to this, had Malay as my medium of instruction for my lower-lvl education. ;) If I can manage reasonably clear postings, so can you if you put in the effort.

fayadi, what i meant was muslims <=> islam , a religion not a race. i think that shows how much you know about them.

They are dumb,of course they are dumb
non of the arabs i know is dumb.

how would u feel if these sort of people keeps on destroying human great achievements like the mighty WTC or Pentagon. so you are blaming all arabs for that.

The way they condemn east asians is they said if we are too stupid to be being westernised,thats why our economy is better than them(things like that)
who exactly said that?

Arabs contributes aint nothing to the world except their lucky ground of oil,I am not racism,come on
that is racism. i mean what do china contributes to the world, rice? you see, that kind of generalizing doesn´t work.


U know one thing Arab is the breeding ground of terrorism,where is all the world biggest terrorist organistaion?
so when bin ladin and his gang was in sudan, it was the africans who were the dumbest in the world?

Who cares of clear English.Excuse me ONLY 1 or 2 person misunderstood me out of my 200 postings.....When expressing my mind i know i cant write good english and to write proper english i really need time but i dont think thats necessary .
Regarding I condemning the middle east,many white americans do worse things than me to the arabs.they damage the mosques,throw stones to the arabian's house.Many people are doing that and u dont know
By the way u dont listen to CNN rmshape,those antrax virus are believed to be produced by former Soviet scientist paid by Arabian terrorist.If anthrax attacks everybody then u will noe.
PRC killed 65 million people,no proof by the way,these numbers are ur wild guesses.u dont use the term kill dont u?They died of famine
WTC and Pentagon is forgotten completely.the figure should be 7000 dead.
I will not support the Chinese Communist but it is a stupid comparison,the people who died in China and those terrorised.Do u ever bother think how they died?Hunger.
And those terrorised by the Arabians?Why u defend them......by the way a information ,u know the New York Mayor why he declined ten million dollars from Saudi Prince because he said the terrorist attacks was caused by US policy to mid east.Even the prince dare to say that...Are u a fan of Osama Bin Laden by the way?if so i wont be surprised....U cand deny the Arab produces the worst terrorist, U cant be cleverer or more informative than CNN :lol:.Nobody had ever called the Chinese Communist terrorist anyway

Muslim is a religion i know ,i said a race earlier was a typing fault

CEASE FIRE

Cool down.....
I thought many white americans hate them? No americans backed me.OKOK ........I thought we all are gonna condemn them together.Yeah cuz the channel i chat on net i hear many whites condemning them,and sounds sensible.Whats the purpose u condemn the Chinese?So many arabs fav Osama ,if they arent dumb what r they.With so much oils,their nations are not as prosporous than the east asians where we dont have much oil.A country with lots of oils were supposed to be rich but they just cant make use of them.Anyway i am just telling my opinions of the arabs in a rather agressive way,it should be normal if u hear anti-arab msg .Okok end this arab discussion get back to the topic

Fayadi, i am half-arab, and i don't like the fact that you are discriminating my father's people.

As an Englishman I have to say that the best leader in history would have to be Churchill. I admit that I cannot be objective in a question of this sort but no-one can deny what Churchill did was the actions of a great leader.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

Mikoyan sorry....................
For your sake i am gonna tell u,You will find anti arab msg everywhere among white teenagers,my friend actually tell me not to tell anybody but just to prevent further misunderstand my good friend's relatives died in WTC and I know her! and I know the feeling of my friend i still remembered a week of anti arab statements he made to me clearly(he cant control himself perharps?)... and I have overexpressed myself.You know that kind of things happened in life.....I really hate the terrorists......I have overexpressed.....Allright Mikoyan i will delete all the anti arab's messages

Yeah, well you have to be able to separate some 1000 terrorists from the general Arab population of 400 million. Apologies accepted, though any racist expressions i see truly sets me on fire!

Fayedi: The fact that what you believe to be (We are talking about the net here) white teenagers have made racist comments doesn't exactly make it right. I am glad you hate terrorism, but you can do beeter than echoing thoughts and opinions you see in chat rooms on the web. As an American I can say, please don't take your information or views from American teenagers in chat rooms.

The reason that others are pointing to China is that you have come out as a China supporter and they are providing an example of why you shouldn't generalize. They could have made the point that you can't judge Germany by the Nazis, but it is more likely to hit hoe if they use China as an example.

Your disregard for starvation death concerns me. If a government institutes a policy in which millions starve to death I fail to see how this is any less criminal than killing them in some other way. Personally I would chose flaming inceneration over slowly starving to death. Watching my friends and family die and having nothing I could do about it. It may not be terrorism, but it is a particularly cruel form of torture. Hopefully that period of China's history seems to be in the past.

A note on CNN, while they are generally a good news service, they are not the arbieters of truth. They are an American For-Profit company and will fill the airwaves with what gets people to watch so that they can sell advertising. That means you will see Arabs demonstrating, not going about their daily lives. You will see the few students demonstrating in Berkly, not the Millions of Americans quietly going about their lives in support of the war on terrorism.

Fayedi:
Another thing, not wanting to jump on the anti-fayedi commitee ;) , but when the English were 'governing' Ireland, the Irish had a thing called the Irish Potato Famine. It devastated them for decades afterwards. The English could have helped, but didn't. This is just one of the reasons why groups like the IRA are around today.

the Irish Potato Famine. It devastated them for decades afterwards. The English could have helped, but didn't. This is just one of the reasons why groups like the IRA are around today.

What could the British have done that would have saved the Irish. They depended on the potato crop like Third world countries depend on crops such as coffee. I am not defending the actions of the British which I admit were appalling but you have to remember the time in which they occured. If something like the potato famine happening in Britain at that time do you think that the reaction of the British government would have been different and if so how?

The IRA are around today because they consider British occupation of their homeland to be unacceptable. They are not the only group in the world who feel this way about a different country, take Eta for example. So you can not blame the Potato famine for the current problems in Northern Ireland.

"So you can not blame the Potato famine for the current problems in Northern Ireland"

"This is just one of the reasons why groups like the IRA are around today."
Note I said 'one of the reasons'.

."What could the British have done that would have saved the Irish?"

I didn't say they could have saved them, I said they could have helped but didn't. Big difference. Millions died, millions left the country. Ireland was never the same again.

Best leaders in history:

1. Cyrus the Great
2. Peter the Great
3. Philip II of Macedon
4. Genghis Khan
5. Prophet Mohammed
6. Otto von Bismarck
7. Akhenaton
8. Augustus Caesar
9. Josef Stalin
10. Shi Huang Di

Stalin farted constantly.

My vote goes elsewhere.

R.III

(Perhaps, to Richard III, who is about as qualified for the title as Stalin is?)

Originally posted by CurtSibling

...Perhaps we should have let Stalin and Adolf blow each other to smithereens...

Not a upper-class toff who slaughtered thousands of men in the First World war.

Churchill once shot a soldier in the foot while posing for a PR photo! :rolleyes:

Ace

1. Hilter would have steamrolled Stalin without British Aid (Yes, British Aid until 44 Britian give far more than the US) and British
action in North Africa (Rommel & the Africa Core were the cream
of the crop and they would have been in Russia).

2. Please explain this one "who slaughtered thousands of men in the First World war." Churchill did not defeat imperial Germany single handed. He had help.

3. So whats your point?

To borrow a phrase "You can argue about Churchill all Day"
If you want to attack his character you got an easy target,
He was a drunkard, egoistal, spoiled, you name it. If you
want to attack what he accomplished your going to have
a very hard row to hoe. He has been a victim of an campaign
of subersive propaganda since 1914 that contines to this day.

You setup any of his so called follies and i'll knock it down.

Guess who I vote for.

Originally posted by Ozz



2. Please explain this one "who slaughtered thousands of men in the First World war." Churchill did not defeat imperial Germany single handed. He had help.




a reference to the Galipoli campaign

I think the poster was Australian so you can understand the disliking of Churchill

Well...err...I am not a Red, so Joseph Stalin isn't going to get my vote...but come to think of it, I can't really say who is the greatest leader of all time, except that I am sure it was not Montezuma...

Another question would be to ask which world leader had the greatest impact on history. I've somehow come to the conclusion that Mehmet II, that old scumbag, was the world leader who had the greatest impact on history because of conquering Constantinople in the (in)famous siege of 1453. With that victory, old Mehmet brought an end to the Byzantine Empire, paved the way (unwittingly) for the Renaissance and (unwittingly again) for the discovery of America.

Originally posted by CrazyDuck


a reference to the Galipoli campaign

I think the poster was Australian so you can understand the disliking of Churchill

Churchill didn't design Galiploi, he supported fighting anywhere
else but headon the german trenchs. Galiploi could have been
won if Admiral Robeck hav'nt loss his nerve after losing 3
battleships to mines. The Turkish gun emplacements were
almost all silenced. Fisher obstructed galiploi in everyway
possible. This was the real reason Galiploi failed. The
British government (especially Fisher) were playing politics.
The army in the plan was only to occupy, the navy was
to take the straits.

This is my opinion, you'll find other opinions that back me
up on this in the Galipoli thread. Churchill actually saved
lifes (allied anyways) by forcing through tank production.

The poster is a Scot, and I can understand the poster maybe
misinformed. Australia has Galipoli, We have Dieppe, so we
are not untouched by Churchill's leadership.

Where the Potato Famine is concerned, Mr. President is correct.

Actually, the British made an attempt to held out. Lord Russell headed that attempt, and though it helped a good many people, the majority of Irishmen could not be helped, nor could the British government do anything about it. It is silly to continually say that the British could have done oh so much more.

Churchill was truly great. He was the only guy out there up to 1941 who really opposed Hitler, everyone else was getting squashed or trying to keep out of it. Thank heavens for Winston Churchill.

Abraham Lincoln. Without his iron will and determination the modern era of the United States and the 20th century itself might have unfolded differently. Who knows if the U.S. could have won the Second World War had there been a Confederacy to enter the equation, possibly as a belligerent on their doorstep?

I would question any candiate who was leader of a country that
erupted into civil war.

I would choose Ghandi.

Sargon of Akkad.:D

Well he did establish one of the first empires in history, 2334 BC.

Other then that, I don't think he holds a torch to some of the other leaders mentioned.

This thread is so old......
By the way,I admit I was once a "racism/fundementalism" months back.I was wrong to say Stalin is my favourite leader and was wrong to say something bad about Arabs

There are actually a lot of great leaders in this world,my favourite leader vote should go to Deng Xiao Ping. China was at its most disastrious period in her history after being destroyed by the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution and lowest period in her economy probably in the history. Deng launched a big reform to liberase the economy that greatly improved the people's lives. I cant wonder what if Deng didnt take over China...........She would probably be one of the poorest nation in the world
Yes I admit China was still very poor now,but look,East China(Chinese cities near the seas) has a high GDP per capita and some are one of the world's best cities ,China didnt achieve this under Mao!

My top 8:

Julius Caesar-conquered gaul, agrarian reforms, solution to debt problems, defeat of Pompey and the optimates, amazing politician, and an excellent general. Loved by the Roman people and forged an amazingly devoted army.

Abraham Lincoln-saved the U.S. from becoming two countries, brought America from a group of states with a common government into a closely knit country.

Otto von Bismarck-created one german state which became a major player in world affairs, with an army and navy to rival almost any nation at the time of World War I.

Napolean Bonaparte-changed France from a country in political turmoil into a closely knit country with a powerful army that conquered almost all of Europe.

Ghengis Khan-created an enormous empire stretching from Mongolia and China in the east to Poland in the west and transformed warfare.

Nelson-his victory at Trafalgar destroyed the French and Spanish fleets and transformed ship warfare.

Alexander the Great-great general, conquered Persian empire.

Winston Churchill-arguably the greatest statesman of the 20th century.

My top 5:
- Genghis Khan
- Darius
- Augustus
- Suleiman the Great
- Napoleon

What about Caesar!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do not interpret 'Best Leader' as most powerful or destructive.

I think that being a good leader means achieving something:

(a) against the odds;
(b) intentionally;
(c) lasting;
(d) without unnecessary destruction or suffering; and
(e) worthwhile.

All the 'let's conquer the world' types Alexander, Attila, Caesar, Ghengis, Hitler, Napoleon, Richard 1, Willim 1 and Stalin fail
(d) and/or (e).

George Washington won his war but it was a qualified success as it did not obtain independence for each State as they wanted;
(they signed up to be the USA instead of King George's realm.)
I also believe that independence could have been negotiated;
so failing on (b) and (d). I dare say US posters will disagree?


In many ways; it is the religious leaders who best meet my criteria; such as Bhudda, Jesus & Mahomet.


If limiting choices to secular leaders; my list is:


(1) von Braun

Humanity reached the moon.


(2) Churchill

Permanent and enduring elimination of evil Hitler cult.


(3) Ghandi

Obtained independence (without bloodshed - IMHO a very
much greater achievement than George Washington).
Altghough Pakistan separated and there were wars;
the rest of India has stayed together despite difficulties.


(4) Confucious

His philosophy, although much criticised since, was a
great improvement upon the thinking of the time and
helped the various chinese peoples achieve a great
degree of stability.


(5) Eddison

He was the first person to work out how to lead teams
of inventors and scientists (notoriously difficult to lead
independent intellectual thinkers) and developed
electric power in its entirety for us all to benefit from.


(6) Elizabeth 1st

Despite being a women at a chauvainistic time when
it was considered impossible for a woman to reign as
sole monarch; she did so and was able to maintain a
united country despite religious divides and the hostility of
France and Spain, and managed an orderly succession.


......insert other non megalomaniac benefactors please.....


(97) Zhukov

His leadership stopped and defeated the Germans
despite Stalin.


(98) Arthur Wellesley

He was able to take a motley mix of untrained criminals
and raw recruits and turn them into soldiers and check
and defeat veteran armies which had more men and
unbroken success behind them.


(99) Augustus


Stabilised the Roman empire after several civil wars.

(100) Monty

Defeated the Nazis and invented the flying circus.

There is a story that in his early days at NASA, Wernher von Braun put up a large poster in the corridor outside his office which said "WE AIM FOR THE STARS!". Apparently some comedian wrote underneath in pencil "....but sometimes we hit London...." :lol:

Originally posted by Fayadi
I think nobody has yet voted for the greatest leader of the history!I vote for Joseph Stalin ,I find that his five year plan is very ideal!He was great as because of him USSR became superpower .

I wouldn't call him the greatest leader, more like one of the most ruthless ones. I'd have to say Octavian 'Augustus" or someone like that who start the 'Pax Romana'.

Augustus didn't "start" the pax romana. It was not something that the Romans just decided to do. It was a gradual process which began in Italy, then spread after the Punic Wars. Augustus, IMHO, was not a brilliant leader. He was efficient, but he didn't come up with any amazing solutions to the issues of the day. It was Caesar that solved the debt problems of Rome, introduced Agrarian reforms to take an enormous load of the Roman treasury while also allowing the homeless and poor citizens of Rome to settle in colonies.

WOW!!!!!! Someone else that is a roman history person!!!!!!

"introduced Agrarian reforms "

That wasn't Caesar that was one of the Gracchi brothers, I forget which one.

Originally posted by MrPresident
"introduced Agrarian reforms "

That wasn't Caesar that was one of the Gracchi brothers, I forget which one.

The Brothers didn't survive their attempt at agrarian reforms.

Lex Agraria I think it was called. I know the brothers didn't survive but they did 'introduce' the agrarian reforms.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Lex Agraria I think it was called. I know the brothers didn't survive but they did 'introduce' the agrarian reforms.

I can't think of anyone who ever has succeeded in agrarian reforms, (not Stalin, Castro maybe?), Augustus tried didn't
he?

The Gracchi introduced agrarian reforms, but they were both murdered before the law had any effect. Caesar introduced more far reaching reforms which had a huge effect on Rome. He was really the only Roman leader of his day that realized that Rome needed change, and that the squabbling, feuding senators couldn't get the job done.

Thank you Philosopher 12, I really love roman history.

Augustus did not attempt agrarian reforms, Ozz, he just kept Caesar's.

Bringing back Stalin, he had at least twice as many people killed as Hitler, not counting famines, but other than that he would be in my opinion the best leader.

Well, what about Zedong? 60 million died under his dictatorship, that's about what...three times Stalin? Some "Great Leap Forward," huh...

In terms of best leaders, I'd put my vote down for Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. If some wacko took over after the previous General-Secretary's death, we might not be here right now :\

1. Bob Dole
2. Confucious "One who stand on toilet must be high on pot"

Gustav Adolphus Champion of the protestent cause, more balanced than Charlie the XII he put Sweden on the map.:Goodjob:

...you'd be suprised how much bacon they produce...;)

Good old canadian bacon........ tastes, like, well, ham. cuz it is

In my opinion Ghengis Kahn, what he did in a lif-time. He conquered a area from eastern-Europe to China. (He even tried to take the Islands of Japan) But in last he failed because of a Kamikaze (Holy Tyfoon (not the best words chosen here I think))

"I'd put my vote down for Ronald Reagan "

You think that the greatest leader of all-time was Ronald Reagan? I don't think he is even the greatest American president let alone greatest leader. Explain to me what exactly he did that was so great.

Frederick the Great of Prussia

Originally posted by Fayadi
I think nobody has yet voted for the greatest leader of the history!I vote for Joseph Stalin ,I find that his five year plan is very ideal!He was great as because of him USSR became superpower .

Fact #1: Stalin killed more of his own people than any other leader except your beloved Mao.

Fact #2: Those still alive in Russia suffered terribly under the 5-year plans, which were founded on forced labor.

Do you still love Iron Joe?

Originally posted by Fayadi

REMEMBER IF NOT FOR STALIN ,GERMANY WILL NOT BE DEFEATED


Remember, if not the the US, Germany would have rolled over Russia. America supplied the Russian military with plains, tanks, money, food, and supplies.

On another note, your criteria for a good leader seems to praise

Mao Tse Tung: Killed the most people ever.

Stalin: Duh! That's the point of your post.

Hitler: Killed the 3rd most people ever and nearly exterminated an entire race in Europe.

The leaders of the late French Revolution who invaded Europe and were responsible for "The Reign of Terror."

What do you think the purpose of government is Fayadi? I recomend you read some of John Locke, Hegel, Adam Smith etc. They have the outlandish beleif that government exists to HELP the people, and that it only derives is JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Heck, even Hobbes, who advocated an oppressive "Leviathon," thought government should serve the people.

Best leader? Attila the Hun IMHO. Dont forget he was ALWAYS fighting in the greatest battles, unlike other leaders.