Hi opinions here please:goodjob:

None of them!

Adler

Pleeeaaaase.... if you're going to make a poll about famous leaders, could you at least get their names right? *shudder*

Roosevelt
Chiang Kai Shek (there are different spellings of this, but yours isn't among them ;) )
Emperor Hirohito
Hitler

And I voted for Winston...

None of them!

Adler

Who would you go for, Adler?

I mostly agree with Adler, but, if forced to choose, I'll take Churchill.

Good God, look at those options. :cringe:

Dunno what to vote - if it were a multi-choice i'd vote all. If there was a none or other option i'd vote for that.

Shouldn't Musollini be somewhere up there ? :lol:

mmm, i'm not sure. who ran Switzerland?

If we're talking about leaders, wouldn't the generals fall into such a category?

I mean, sure the presidents / dictators / prime ministers had the last word it seems but come on...

I'm voting for Rommel ;)

If only political leaders were counting I would take the old Finnish Mannerheim. The others have all too much dirty hands. However IF I had to choose from them, I would take Churchill. Hitler and Stalin were ruthless tyrants, Mao and Chiang Kai Check not very much better (Mao even worse), Hirohito had nothing to say, Roosevelt an idiot, Truman too short being president and de Gaulle only commanding the French auxiliar troops. Although not having clean hands either Churchill knew, what was going on very well. And Mussolini is even not on the list. So Churchill is the best of the worst.

Adler

Stalin, of course

I'd have picked Winston, but his naval policies during WWI put me off

so Roosevelt it is for me

and I see I am alone :lol:

Hitler

By greatest I don't mean good, I mean most influential. Who could be more influential then the man that started a brutal war, genocide and then managed to drive his country into the ground when he screwed with too many nations?

Vidkun Quisling....just kidding

Zog of course :P

Truth be told Mao should be there as leader of the Communist Chinese forces. His WWII record was great. Later....not so much.

If the I were to chose the greatest General, I am voting for Marshal Zhukov - the man who actually commanded the Russian Army (Stalin, of course, had absolute power over everything, but he wasn't a militiary general, despite all the Soviet propaganda, who treated him as such). Now, for the greatest civil leader - a close call between Stalin and Churchill.

I'm of course the one going with de Gaulle here. (Surprise, surprise!:groucho:)

The man had his flaws, but of this lot, he can walk away with it.

We're not talking about who kicked the most but, had most troops or the biggest industry here. We're looking at leadership.

De Gaulle starts out with nothing. Literally. There was no France anymore, in a sense. When he was done, France didn't just exist, but was a recognised victor of WWII. Who can top that?

The French Republic was abolished on 17 June 1940 in favour of the Vichy state. On 18 June de Gaulle spoke to the French on Radio London, asking them to join him. The first muster that summer in London yielded some 7000 Free French intent on fighting on.

By wars end the Republic of France was among the victorious powers with a reconstituted French army of 1,25 million men and ten divisions deep in south Germany after launching an invasion of their own.

In the mean time de Gaulle has asserted his leadership in the eyes of the French, the British and the Americans. That last one was no mean feat, considering the Roosevelt administrations... unsound... predeliction to want to cut deals with the Vichyists and sideline de Gaulle and the Free French.

De Gaulle succeeded by being bang on the money in his analysis of the political and military situation after the fall of France. He was just as correct in the kind of attitude necessary to get the French to accept his leadership. And finally his moral compass was right on target with regards to the position of the Vichyists, meaning he actually managed to sway Roosevelt and Churchill from a course of action that would otherwise have been morally compromising for the allies.

Of course Roosevelt and Churchill, just about everyone but the French, hated him. The communists didn't like him and his Free French. The US state department might have hated him as much as the Germans.
Not that it mattered. He was right and he made the two allied big wigs fold for their own good. (De Gaulle found it strange that Churchill and Roosevelt in their efforts to win the war tended to forget that it was also a moral struggle against Fascism and Nazism.) He won every damn showdown he had with Churchill and Roosevelt by being right in his analysis of the situation and forcing the to realise that he held the moral high ground. ("For the sake of France, I had to be harsh with them", he commented after the war.)

To boot he was even a better than average field commander, bagging the only substantial success of the French army in 1940, which put him in the Reynaud cabinet.

There aren't even any military fiascos or atrocities tied to his name, like Churchill has. (Gallipoli, the tactics used in Ireland that even upset his wife Clementine to the extent she told Winny to cut it out.)

He later went on to have a stellar career as a civilian the president of France, in fact being the architect of the present French constitution.

Whether you consider France a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, Charles de Gaulle's success as a political leader in WWII made one hell of a difference. For the good, if you think it important if France does well, for the bad, if you don't.

By comparison everyone else on the list came to an already laid table, made more mistakes, and worse choices. De Gaulle started with way longer odds, but went further, faster than any of them as far as I can see.

de Gaulle only commanding the French auxiliar troops.
Oh how Curchill and Roosevelt would have loved that to be true!

That was the role the were trying to fit de Gaulle into, more fool them.;)

@Lone Wolf: Zhukov only won because of his supremacy of having enough man to attack ruthlessly. He had lost the war if the Germans had more men. When the Russians entered Berlin one single army would have driven them behind the Oder river or even further. They were exhausted and their supply system was in trouble. Also having lost 2 million men from the Oder to Berlin, here alone 500.000 against 40- 60.000 defender, was a loss showing the (in-) abilities of Zhukov.

@Verbose: To be honest, the French part of the warfare after 1940 was minimal. France was out of the game and only due to the grace of Truman/ Roosevelt and Churchill it was recognized as victor. De facto it lost the war in 1940. So IMO de Gaulle was only commanding French forces not much more than auxiliar troops.

Adler

@Verbose: To be honest, the French part of the warfare after 1940 was minimal. France was out of the game and only due to the grace of Truman/ Roosevelt and Churchill it was recognized as victor. De facto it lost the war in 1940. So IMO de Gaulle was only commanding French forces not much more than auxiliar troops.
How minimal we can debate, but you are overfocusing on it anyway. You haven't really looked into the French war after 1940 and the role of de Gaulle have you?:)

This wasn't about the fighting but about the leadership. De Gaulle never led troops after 1940. He was purely a politician.

That's where you can look at his leadership, and the task wasn't just the defeat of Germany, but HOW Germany would be defeated and what role France would play. The Brits and American had the luxury of mostly thinking about it as a military problem. For de Gaulle and the French it was a complex political problem as well.

The Free French military commands were filled by people like Leclerc, Koenig, Juin, de Tassigny etc. You can consider that part of the Free French effort (400.000 mostly frotnline troops by D-day) as auxilliary to the British and the US armies if you like. And as you say, while chipping in what they had, after 1940 it couldn't be France that brough Germany down.

So if the outcome of WWII had purely been a matter of nations getting recognition for how much hurt they had caused Germany, France would be pretty screwed. Now observe what position France actually was in...:scan:

No to bad, eh? You're assuming this was purely because the other allies were being nice, I take it? You might want to look into that assumption.

De Gaulle managed to get himself and the provisional French government recognised by everyone, the French included, not least the resistance, and beat the US to taking over the civlian administration of France. The key was to get credible French recognition to proceed to beat the US up with it until pretty late in 1944 they found themselves forced to recognise it. Forced, very unwillingly...

Otherwise the US idea was to occupy France and set up their own administration. That's what you get without de Gaulle. A France defeated in 1940 and occupied by Germany, to be occupied by the US and UK in 1944. (Roosevelt's idea for Europe seems to have been a disarmed Anglo-US protectorate anyway.)

This was all politics and had little to do with the fighting. Though he would demand some things for the political need: Sending Leclerc to Paris to make sure neither of the two bad scenarios happening: 1) the communist uprising fails and the Free French are seen to have done nothing to help, or 2) it succeeds, and the communists control Paris. And he charged de Tassigny withe the task of crossing the Rhine and invading for the political impact. Of course militarily the French was completely dependant on their allies for equipment and supplies, only providing troops (in constantly increasing numbers).

But politically de Gaulle wasn't really given a damn thing that he didn't take or forced the others to concede, He made demands that couldn't be denied, without it looking like the US and UK were simply unreasonable and unjust, steamrolling French soverignity and the principles of the alliance. It worked because they had to concede de Gaulle was right, but it sure as hell wasn't convenient for them, and they hated him for it.

This in a situation when all the US, in particular, really wanted was a pliable stooge and some auxilliary troops. That's why the courted the Vichy under Darlan (murdered) and Giraud (deferred to de Gaulle's leadership when they actually met).

They did get de Gaulle and eventually France along with him. Partly because he would regularily face down Roosevelt and Churchill, never compromising or selling out French interests. The Roosevelt admin. for the longest time wasn't too sure they really wanted this, but the Brits at least had the good sense to see it for the boon it was.

And as I said, if you look at leadership exercised, de Gaulle was spectacular considering what he started with compared to what he ended up with. And he sure as shayt didn't get there by commanding French auxilliaries for the US.

But your faith in the basic niceness of the US and UK towards France is touching.:p;)

@Verbose

You speak of great leadership, but have yet to demonstrate actual leadership. You have shown only politics. I was not aware leadership and politics were interchangeable words ;)

Also, for each statement that supports de Gaulle, you might want to show how he actually did it.

"De Gaulle managed to get himself and the provisional French government recognised by everyone, the French included, not least the resistance, and beat the US to taking over the civlian administration of France. The key was to get credible French recognition to proceed to beat the US up with it until pretty late in 1944 they found themselves forced to recognise it. Forced, very unwillingly..."

how?

can you give some supporting evidence?

Despite being the patriotic American I am my answer is....

*drumroll*

Stalin. Why?

Mostly because he was ruthless enough, shrewd enough, and hard enough to pull Russia through the greatest bloodbath ever seen. His five year plans - though utterly brutal - brought Soviet heavy industry to a point where it could begin to supply the country's military needs. The military policies (like shooting a soldier if he retreated) were similarly harsh... And similarly effective. Despite enormous casualties from the first summer and fall against the Germans, they managed to stand at Moscow. Lastly, when the war was all but won, he was able to get incredibly favorable strategic positions in Europe through a combination of true diplomacy, and making promises that he had no intention of keeping.

Truly I wish he had never been born. However, for all his humanitarian shortcomings, it cannot be denied that Stalin was a great leader for his country during one of it's most trying periods.

However, it was a close call. I could have made strong cases for Churchill and Roosevelt too. But I decided to be controversial instead. :D

Of them, Churchill.

Of ALL WW2 leaders, Ike.

de gaulle, supported by churchill came back to haunt us when he would'nt let britain into the eu, the perfect example of the frenchman thinking they are higher than us! just him though, i am not suggesting every frenchman hates the UK

@Verbose

You speak of great leadership, but have yet to demonstrate actual leadership. You have shown only politics. I was not aware leadership and politics were interchangeable words ;)

how?

can you give some supporting evidence?
Not enough time to write the story of de Gaulle and the Free French at the mo'. Sorry!
I was giving the effects of his activities as a shorthand to having to tell the whole damn story. You can disbelieve it if you like. And I think political leadership counts here.

Edit:
Even if he was an odd sort of politcian entirely outside ordinary party politcs (which he hated) with it's compromise and consensus building. His leadership of the French to a very great extent consisted in being a visionary. He found France at its absolute low point in 1940 and indicated where they should be going. The extraordinary thing is that he pulled it off.

Try this perhaps?
http://www.amazon.com/Gaulle-Rebel-1890-1944-Norton-Paperback/dp/0393309991/sr=8-1/qid=1172401752/ref=sr_1_1/103-1968097-2656624?ie=UTF8&s=books

To boot he was even a better than average field commander, bagging the only substantial success of the French army in 1940, which put him in the Reynaud cabinet.

Hold on there, don't cut the French short. They arguably won the first tank battle in history.

From May 12-14 two French light mechanized divisions held off two Panzer divisions at Hannut. France lost 105 tanks, while the Germans lost 165 tanks. That one goes to Prioux.

I voted Churchill as he made the whole poplation united and got them through a period when the Uk alone stood agianst Nazism.

I dont think Hitler was the greatest leader. Sure he did wonders for Germany before the war with his national labour front and bringing them out of the economic chaos of the 1920/30s etc..... But he basically lost the war himself with his interference in the military and by riding it of its best Commanders. The war was lost when he declared war on Russia against the advice of High Command and senior Generals.

I agree with Verbose. I voted De Gaulle, for he started with virtually nothing left but manage to restore France and be able to be there at the end.

Without him, France would be remembered only as surrendering coward and Vichy collaborators [And even with him some are willing to remember only that).

So if we measure the achievement with "points when leadership starts and points when leadership ends", he has the best score. Hitler has the worst :mischief: .

My second vote would be for Churchill, and his resolve to fight to the end, to change a possible defeat to victory (similar to De Gaulle by the way).

its hard to determine who is the best, but i choose roservelt here.

As for the worst, Chiak kia Shek by a large lead.

de Gaulle...

persuasively. +1

Churchill, great man. Lifted britian out of the battle of Britian through his speches that raised the morale of not only his troops and his countrymen.

I agree with Verbose. I voted De Gaulle, for he started with virtually nothing left but manage to restore France and be able to be there at the end.

Without him, France would be remembered only as surrendering coward and Vichy collaborators [And even with him some are willing to remember only that).

A large portion of America still sees France as having lost the war. A POW, so to speak, that the other allies rescued. They tried to escape the prison camp, but would have never gotten anywhere without the US and Britain.

So like your last sentence did, a lot of people do only remember that. De Gaulle is a minor figure in all the textbooks I've seen..:mischief:

but then again, I'm American ;)



So if we measure the achievement with "points when leadership starts and points when leadership ends", he has the best score. Hitler has the worst :mischief: .


Totally disregarding the effect other leaders and other nations have on the state of a nation.

because we ALL KNOW that the leader of a country is the only reason it's better or worse :crazyeye:


So when I do a physics lab, I don't need to have constants. I can have as many variables as I want. So long as one of them increases as the result does, it must work great, regardless as to what the other variables did.

So like your last sentence did, a lot of people do only remember that. De Gaulle is a minor figure in all the textbooks I've seen..:mischief:
Why should you have seen otherwise? He was the leader of France, not the US. The fact that he even gets a mention in a poll like this, by a poster who is not French himself, is a testament to how good he did.

And no one is denying that the liberation of France would have been impossible without the US and UK doing it.

The point is what KIND of France was liberated, what kind of France to come out of WWII. That was very much de Gaulle's doing. His leadership for the French was a moral leadership as much as a practical one.

If you don't know/don't care much about France, the significance may escape you. It was not lost to the Frenchmen who were subjected to de Gaulle's leadership however.

Every nasty thing the Americans of today may think about the French in WWII the French were in fact thinking about themselves in 1940. De Gaulle turned that around 180 degrees. Not a bad trick. Even if some Americans think it unjustified and a bad thing, the French don't give a damn.:goodjob:

And it isn't specified in the OP that only leadership known and recognised in the US counts.:p

Despite being the patriotic American I am my answer is....

*drumroll*

Stalin. Why?

Mostly because he was ruthless enough, shrewd enough, and hard enough to pull Russia through the greatest bloodbath ever seen. His five year plans - though utterly brutal - brought Soviet heavy industry to a point where it could begin to supply the country's military needs. The military policies (like shooting a soldier if he retreated) were similarly harsh... And similarly effective. Despite enormous casualties from the first summer and fall against the Germans, they managed to stand at Moscow. Lastly, when the war was all but won, he was able to get incredibly favorable strategic positions in Europe through a combination of true diplomacy, and making promises that he had no intention of keeping.

Truly I wish he had never been born. However, for all his humanitarian shortcomings, it cannot be denied that Stalin was a great leader for his country during one of it's most trying periods.

However, it was a close call. I could have made strong cases for Churchill and Roosevelt too. But I decided to be controversial instead. :D

Stalin also purged around 30,000 of the Red Army's top officers and generals during the thirties, which is a bit of a black mark on his record as a war-time leader! ;)

I voted for Churchill on the poll.

:)

Why should you have seen otherwise? He was the leader of France, not the US. The fact that he even gets a mention in a poll like this, by a poster who is not French himself, is a testament to how good he did.

And no one is denying that the liberation of France would have been impossible without the US and UK doing it.

The point is what KIND of France was liberated, what kind of France to come out of WWII. That was very much de Gaulle's doing. His leadership for the French was a moral leadership as much as a practical one.

If you don't know/don't care much about France, the significance may escape you. It was not lost to the Frenchmen who were subjected to de Gaulle's leadership however.

Every nasty thing the Americans of today may think about the French in WWII the French were in fact thinking about themselves in 1940. De Gaulle turned that around 180 degrees. Not a bad trick. Even if some Americans think it unjustified and a bad thing, the French don't give a damn.:goodjob:

And it isn't specified in the OP that only leadership known and recognised in the US counts.:p

Yeah, that last sentence? That was referring to a sarcastic remark I made. Note the smiley, and the implied humor and lack of seriousness


I'm not saying DeGaulle didn't do anything for France. He certainly did contribute and help France. Contrary to popular belief. Not all Americans hate the French.

It's just fun to throw a light hearted joke every now and then.

Why else would I have read a thousand page book on Napoleon Bonaparte, for example?

I just don't think what DeGaulle did was enough to earn him a vote over the other, highly qualified candidates, many of which worked miracles for their people

From the list:
1.Churchill
...
2.de Gaulle
3.Roosevelt

Hmmm strange - I will agree with Adler :) France had minimal impact on WW2 warfare. France was recognized as a super-power in Europe before WW2, however Germany overrun France quicker than Poland (and they attacked Poland together with Russians). Secondly there was more Polish soldiers fighting in WW2 than French. It's hard to find quickly other sources than wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ww2 but in case of long discussion I maybe dig a little bit into it to find exact sources...

Hmmm strange - I will agree with Adler :) France had minimal impact on WW2 warfare. France was recognized as a super-power in Europe before WW2, however Germany overrun France quicker than Poland (and they attacked Poland together with Russians). Secondly there was more Polish soldiers fighting in WW2 than French. It's hard to find quickly other sources than wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ww2 but in case of long discussion I maybe dig a little bit into it to find exact sources...
Please do! I'd be very interested in the figures for the Poles.:)

Edit:
I mean, the Poles fought longer and harder than just about everyone, and got nothing. France came out of WWII looking pretty OK thanks to de Gaulle and the Free French. As I said, the fact that he's even an option in a poll like this is a measure pf his success.

If only political leaders were counting I would take the old Finnish Mannerheim. The others have all too much dirty hands. However IF I had to choose from them, I would take Churchill. Hitler and Stalin were ruthless tyrants, Mao and Chiang Kai Check not very much better (Mao even worse), Hirohito had nothing to say, Roosevelt an idiot, Truman too short being president and de Gaulle only commanding the French auxiliar troops. Although not having clean hands either Churchill knew, what was going on very well. And Mussolini is even not on the list. So Churchill is the best of the worst.

Adler

I'm intrigued Adler. Just out of curiosity, what about Roosevelt made him idiotic (apart from him being a democrat, and wanting more judges on the Supreme Court)?

Too bad Churchill's tactics sucked. The Gallipoli in the First, and the "Soft Underbelly of Europe" in the Second. Stick to what you're decent at Winston.

Edit:
I mean, the Poles fought longer and harder than just about everyone, and got nothing. France came out of WWII looking pretty OK thanks to de Gaulle and the Free French. As I said, the fact that he's even an option in a poll like this is a measure pf his success.
Indeed. It can't be said the Poles were cowards. That would be an offense worthy of a good beating if one was to do so.

I agree with Verbose. I voted De Gaulle, for he started with virtually nothing left but manage to restore France and be able to be there at the end.

Without him, France would be remembered only as surrendering coward and Vichy collaborators [And even with him some are willing to remember only that).

So if we measure the achievement with "points when leadership starts and points when leadership ends", he has the best score. Hitler has the worst .

My second vote would be for Churchill, and his resolve to fight to the end, to change a possible defeat to victory (similar to De Gaulle by the way).
And later on, weren't there assassination attempts made on him?

Tank Guy, his ruthlessness concerning ww2, he wanted to get in to become a superpower as he did not hear on Hitler's attampt to negotiate a peace, was not the reason, but his stupidity concerning Stalin. He believed this man! Churchill did not trust him for a second. And his means to stop the depression are also debateable, but do not belong into this thread.

Adler

If only political leaders were counting I would take the old Finnish Mannerheim. The others have all too much dirty hands.
Adler


Mannerheim was mainly a military leader. He had little part in politics before summer 1944, when he became the president as the former resigned after some diplomatic tricks and plots crafted in order to detach Finland from the pact with Germany (without raising too much bad blood as the Germans were occupying the Northern Finland) which was clearly loosing the war and to negotiate separate peace with the Russians. Even after Mannerheim became president prime minister Paasikivi was the most important authority in politics and internal affairs. Mannerheim became the president as the Finns supposed he would get a better deal from the Russians, and his main role during the late war was to lead Lappland War against the Germans, former allies, as the peace agreement with the Russians called for.

Finnish politics were quite dirty before, during and after the war but it was directed by the government, not a single great leader.

And later on, weren't there assassination attempts made on him?
Yes, from OAS (Organisation de l'Armée Secrète), French officers and settlers who were against his policy of letting Algeria go.

And later on, weren't there assassination attempts made on him?
By the OAS, the officers in Algeria who felt they had already won the war in Algeria, and that de Gaulle had implicitly promised them that Algeria would remain French whe he asked them to give him "facts on the ground" so that he could negotiate from a position of strength.
De Gaulle instead negotiated the independence of Algeria, as it was the only thing that made political sense. To de Gaulle holding on to colonies in the 1960's was something camparable to liking steam trains. You could feel nostalgic about them, but they were useless, or even a liability, for a modern nation.

Cross-post! Sorry Steph.:)

de Gaulle really inspired the French, did he not? and he didnt take being put aside by the big guys who still had countries.

I really dont understand how a person could not vote hitler. With the exception of roosevelt, hitler completely manipulated and humilated every other guy on this list, made them look stupid, and had them all doing exactly what he wanted them to do, until of course, it became a matter of desperate survival for them. Then they could only survive by being united.
okay so he was a bad guy, but this person talkign about degaulle...lol....hey take a glance at what HITLER started with! and what he did with it! outrageous!
The guy was nobody. Germany was a republic, paying massive war debt t all these other nations. Not allowed to arm itself.
This wanna be artist comes out of nowehere and totally reverses the situation. Turns the whole governemnt structure of germany on its head, and within years transforms this crippled german whimper of a nation into a military force that NO nation could have withstood alone, WHILE POLITICALLY MANIPULATING ALL THESE OTHER IDIOTS INTO DOING NOTHING... OR EVEN HELPING HIM!
if winsont was such a great leader then WHAT WAS THE DECISION OF MUNICH? WHAT IDIOT, AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF 'MEIN KAMPF', WOULD NOT ELIMINATE HITLER IN 1936?!?!?!
Im sorry, winston was a witty and funny guy and i love him for it also, but he was a damn idiot for not squashing hitler in 1936. end of argument. he can not be forgiven for that.

I really dont understand how a person could not vote hitler. With the exception of roosevelt, hitler completely manipulated and humilated every other guy on this list, made them look stupid, and had them all doing exactly what he wanted them to do, until of course, it became a matter of desperate survival for them. Then they could only survive by being united.
okay so he was a bad guy, but this person talkign about degaulle...lol....hey take a glance at what HITLER started with! and what he did with it! outrageous!
The guy was nobody. Germany was a republic, paying massive war debt t all these other nations. Not allowed to arm itself.
This wanna be artist comes out of nowehere and totally reverses the situation. Turns the whole governemnt structure of germany on its head, and within years transforms this crippled german whimper of a nation into a military force that NO nation could have withstood alone, WHILE POLITICALLY MANIPULATING ALL THESE OTHER IDIOTS INTO DOING NOTHING... OR EVEN HELPING HIM!

Im sorry, winston was a witty and funny guy and i love him for it also, but he was a damn idiot for not squashing hitler in 1936. end of argument. he can not be forgiven for that.

What, not even considering that he was not in power in 1936? :lol:
AFAIK Churchill fiercely criticized Chamberlain's appeasement policy.

As far as the list concerned, I'd probably vote for De Gaulle. While I despise France's role in WW2, especially considering its role afterwards and the way they did with collaborators, you cannot deny that the way he played his cards politically was masterful.

Roosevelt was probably among the poorest, but it was partially due to his health condition.

Yes yr right, sorry lapse of memory, it was chamberlain who did the Munich nonsense and churchill was apalled by it. So he had no blame there. Apologize.

Since the OP mentions World War II, anything that happened in Gallipoli has no bearing. So Churchill is (besides Truman) my favorite, if not the "greatest" (how do we define the word in this context?) de Gaulle is actually in the Guiness Book of World Records for most failed attempts on his life if I recall.