Best Leader of History?

[knowltok]

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.

 

[knowltok]

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.

 

[polymath]

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?

 

[CurtSibling]

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!

 

[CurtSibling]

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!

 

[knowltok]

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.

 

[andycapp]

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 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.

 

[Fayadi]

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

 

[geake]

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.

 

[knowltok]

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.

 

[knowltok]

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.

 

[geake]

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.

 

[animepornstar]

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?

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.

 

[amadeus]

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.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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.

 

[animepornstar]

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?

 

[Fayadi]

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 .Nobody had ever called the Chinese Communist terrorist anyway

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

 

[Fayadi]

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