Most powerful person ever

[RedRalph]

Off Topic I admit.

But its interesting. Who do you think, either relative to their period or not, was the person who had the single largest accumulation of power in their hands? I'd say Stalin, as in his time he had:

The largest land army ever assembled
Nuclear weapons
Control of an enormous swathe of Earth
Complete and uncontested control over the CPSU, the politburo and the supreme soviet
Enough industrial power to influence events significantly distant from his borders
An organ which could influence the behaviour of governments far beyond his borders (Comintern then Cominform)
A really great moustache


any thoughts?

 

[Jerrymander]

Genghis Khan. There's no Tamerlane in Civ4. :[

Stalin had absolute power, yes, but his nation was politically, economically, and faithfully weak. That always happens with a totalitarian society.

 

[RedRalph]

It wasnt politically weak. It was politically the second strongest country on Earth

 

[Jerrymander]

No, the practiced form of communism (totalitarianism!) is a horrible system of government.

 

[RedRalph]

Whether you like or dislike it is irrelevant to how powerful Stalin was. The fact was the USSR in 1945 was incredibly powerful politically.

Just to clarify, I'm not asking who anyone wishes was, or admires the most, just who was the most powerful

 

[Jerrymander]

Oh yes, when it was first formed, the USSR was very powerful politically. But during Stalin's reign, its power declined as Stalin's power increased; a negative correlation.

My personal feelings are not influencing me when I say this, it's all self-evident. :]

 

[RedRalph]

Its power declined under Stalin? Are you joking? whe he took over it was completely isolated, so much so it was really only friendly towards pariah Germany, militarily crippled after the civil war, not even in control of large parts of its own jurisdiction, and when he died it was a global superpower, with control over Eastern Europe (its own borders having expanded considerably) a space program, enormous influence over China, nuclear weapons, an established state which at that time couldnt imaginably have been overthrown form inside....

Are you winding me up?

 

[Pariah]

If you're partly defining Stalin's power by the fact that had near-absolute control within the Soviet Union & was not answerable to an electorate like American presidents are, then perhaps his successors, Nikita Krushchev & Leonid Brezhnev, was even more powerful - since the USSR continued to produce biger and better weapons, especially nuclear ones, during their periods of rule, which were just as undemocratic as Stalin's.

In fact, the Soviet nuclear arsenal reached its peak around 1985 - so perhaps Mikhail Gorbachev was, initially, the most powerful Soviet leader of all?

 

[Yeekim]

I guess I may have to agree with Ralph and his initial arguments.

I don't quite get, what Jerrymander is referring to, as "politically weak". Not too much friends abroad? Not based on democracy?

Economically weak is partially true. Plan economy is horribly ineffective and very inconvenient to live under. However, USSR had an abundance of natural resources to waste.

Faithfully weak? It is actually amazing, how strong the "personal cult" of Stalin was (an still is, among some). Looks like love against dictatorship, and the harsher the better, is somewhat peculiar to Russians.

EDIT: @Pariah: Khrushchev can not be compared to Stalin in that sense. He sure had possibility to cement his power by simple elimination of all competition as Stalin did, but he chose not to. Khrushchev was actually sent to retirement by Political Bureau - and while he had chance to fight back, he did not. Can you imagine this happening to Stalin?

Brezhnev just is not up to the comparison.

 

[RedRalph]

If you're partly defining Stalin's power by the fact that had near-absolute control within the Soviet Union & was not answerable to an electorate like American presidents are, then perhaps his successors, Nikita Krushchev & Leonid Brezhnev, was even more powerful - since the USSR continued to produce biger and better weapons, especially nuclear ones, during their periods of rule, which were just as undemocratic as Stalin's.

In fact, the Soviet nuclear arsenal reached its peak around 1985 - so perhaps Mikhail Gorbachev was, initially, the most powerful Soviet leader of all?

Yes but everything taken into account, I think Stalin was mroe powerful. Khruschev was "retired", which was unthinkable during Stalins time. While the Red Army peaked in 1985, (not in conventional forces, in 1945 the red army stood at 10,000,000 men) Gorbachov never had anyhign like the personal control Stalin had. But this is the crux of the issue. Do you think a Gorbachov with 16,000 nuclear warheads but in a topple-able position was more powerflu then Stalin with a few 100 warheads but in an inassailabe position

Mao was incredibly powerful too, had total control over the lives of a billion people (less and less as his rule went on though)

 

[ChrTh]

Al Gore

Invented the Internet, the Environment, wrote Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth, and was the First Emperor of the Moon.

"I have ridden the mighty Moon Worm"

 

[Bast]

Queen Victoria!!

 

[Pariah]

Al Gore

Invented the Internet, the Environment, wrote Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth, and was the First Emperor of the Moon.

I didn't know this was a nonsense thread..

Seriously thought: nobody can claim to have "invented" environmental awareness or movements. Not even Sir David Attenborough. As for inventing the environment itself - that's God.

Does Almighty God count as the most powerful 'person' ever?

 

[ChrTh]

I didn't know this was a nonsense thread..

Seriously thought: nobody can claim to have "invented" environmental awareness or movements. Not even Sir David Attenborough. As for inventing the environment itself - that's God.

Does Almighty God count as the most powerful 'person' ever?

In order: if it was a purely serious thread, it should be in the World History forum. And even then you'd get jokes.

It *is* very hard to claim the invention of ideas, but it does happen. Usually though it's because we are unable to determine what the sources for that idea were.

Depends on how you view the almighty.

 

[Traitorfish]

Should I say "Chuck Norris" or will somebody else?

I'd say Stalin- he controlled the USSR near absolutely- any power it had was his.

 

[BlackJAC]

Off Topic I admit.

But its interesting. Who do you think, either relative to their period or not, was the person who had the single largest accumulation of power in their hands? I'd say Stalin, as in his time he had:

The largest land army ever assembled
Nuclear weapons
Control of an enormous swathe of Earth
Complete and uncontested control over the CPSU, the politburo and the supreme soviet
Enough industrial power to influence events significantly distant from his borders
An organ which could influence the behaviour of governments far beyond his borders (Comintern then Cominform)
A really great moustache


any thoughts?

Childish I know, but that made me laugh

 

[ChrTh]

I was going to ask if we could remove Nuclear Weapons from the equation since that prevents us from discussing leaders such as Alexander, etc. However, I checked the dates, and Nuclear Weapons really aren't part of the equation. Yes, Stalin had access to atomic bombs, but the first H-bomb wasn't tested until 6 months after he died, and the Soviets (as far as I can tell) did not possess the rocketry technology during his lifetime that they later did.

I think the fact that he had Nuclear Weapons shouldn't be on the list, because his ability to use them was limited by their potency and their range.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Mao was incredibly powerful too, had total control over the lives of a billion people (less and less as his rule went on though)

Mao's China was poor and backwards. He did have power in China, but not so much internationally (his superpower program was a failure). And China reached population of 1 billion some six years after his death (1982).

 

[FuRRie]

No, the practiced form of communism (totalitarianism!) is a horrible system of government.

Absolutely not true.
It can be a good form of goverment, it's just very extreme for most people.

 

[Pariah]

It can be a good form of goverment...

It can in theory, and in Civilization games; in real life, it almost never has been.