Most important/influential person of the century

[Dillinger]

Pretty self-explanatory.

Theodore Rosevelt

It was he who truly allowed America to have a true say in world affairs, and this led to American involvement in WWI, WWII, and other assorted conflicts.

[Ludens]

The most influential person was Adolf Hitler. His regime caused the second world war and the holocaust, and this lead to the cold war and the current situation in the Middle East. This has influenced the lives of millions of people in no small way. No other person in the twenthieth century could claim that.
I wish it wasn't true, but it is.

(I am aware that these things would probably have happened without Hitler, but Hitler is the one who is responsible for them, so he is the most influential person).

If you would ask this question to an Asiat, a possible answer would be Mao Tze Tung. He did roughly the same (well, less war and less holocaust, but he did influence the lives of millions of people in no insignificant way). The difference is that he kept it mainly contained to China, while Hitler tried to spread it everywhere.

[Demequis]

I guess I agree with hitler as well.

But I think that the scientists of the past century have definitely had the most indirect impact on the global landscape. I think it's fair to credit the developments in modern science that emerged in the beginning of the century with hitler's success and failure, as well as virtually every issue we deal with today. Unfortunately it's extremely hard to pick one person. :)

Yeah Hitler hands down as far as individuals.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

[Phatose]

Gavrilo Princip, a serbian who assasinated Archduke Ferdinand leading to the chain reaction of alliances that became world war one. Which eventually lead into the Treaty of Versailles, which allowed Hitler to rise to power and start world war two.

[Dillinger]

Just how critical was American intervention in WWI? As, if it was not that important, then I would say the Serb.

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Dillinger @ Jan. 16 2004,16:06)]Pretty self-explanatory.

Theodore Rosevelt

It was he who truly allowed America to have a true say in world affairs, and this led to American involvement in WWI, WWII, and other assorted conflicts.
I did a research project on the Great White Fleet for work, followed by a Spanish-American War display. What a great big blustering giant of a man. We'll never have another like him...political correctness and so forth.

My favorite story about him: Oct. 14, 1912, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Just before a campaign speech, he was shot in the chest by a potential assassin. His vest covered in blood, he stood up before the crowd and said, I have been shot, and then proceeded to deliver his speech http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-cool.gif

[Ikken Hisatsu]

While old Theo was no doubt a good bloke I would hardly put him at the top of influential characters. Hitler obviously gets that one. the serbian assassin also played a huge role, but if you want to go back even further you could blame the archduke.... he wasnt assassinated for no reason. before you know it you're back at the hundred years war blaming the black prince.

After Hitler I would probably say Churchill- without him there is no doubt in my mind that England would have signed a truce and subsequently been blitzed, America would not have gotten involved, Russia might of held out but either way it would be a europe ruled by either Stalin or Hitler or both, neither a particularly nice prospect. If that had happened we might be in the midst of a war between America and a huge german empire/ the USSR.

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Dillinger @ Jan. 16 2004,21:33)]Just how critical was American intervention in WWI? As, if it was not that important, then I would say the Serb.
Very critical. Check out Chateau-Thierry, Belleau Wood, Saint Mihiel, etc.

The AEF arrived on the Continent during the most crucial stage of the war; France & Britain, having sustained enormous casualties over years of bloody fighting, were reaching the point of exhaustion; Germany, having finally knocked Russia out of the war and conquered the Balkans, was turning to hurl her full force at the Western Front. At that moment, our fresh troops helped blunt the last German all-out offensives, and also helped the Italians finally break the Austrian line in the Alps.

Reading about WWI today is a bit sad; we were determined to repay France for their critical help during our Revolution (Lafayette, we are here). Many Americans forget that they helped liberate us long before we did the same for them (WWII), and to commemorate our friendship, they gave us what became the most famous symbol of our nation, the Statue of Liberty. I hope the current breach is soon healed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad2.gif

[Papewaio]

Rutherford

An experimental physicist who proved that atoms are not solid, headed Cavendish Laboratories where people like Bohr worked.

His discoveries lead the way to the atomic age.

[motorhead]

I'd have to go with Hitler as most influential. If u could go back in time and pluck one person off the face of the earth, I can't imagine anyone else having as dramatic an impact.

My take, with no disrespect to these suggestions:
1) Serbian dude: Austria-Hungary was looking for a reason to invade Serbia, they likely would have generated another reason if not the Archduke.
2) Physics man: Was there nobody else who could have eventually discovered what he did? The only reason nuclear weapons had such a presence in the 20th century was the Cold War between East and West which can be traced back to WWII and Hitler. Outside of France and Japan, what countries rely on nuclear power today for more than token amounts of their energy needs?
3) Teddy: ok, i admit, i'm not fully cognizant of his achievements. Expanded the Monroe Doctrine - basically told Europe to piss off, central and south america were America's dominion now. Even the Theodore Roosevelt Association (www.theodoreroosevelt.org, chartered by act of Congress) talks primarily of his domestic achievements. Granted, u could argue what he did eventually had a worldwide impact, but i need a more simple 1:1 correlation.

What would have happened if no Hitler and no WWII? Would Teddy's impact on America and hence world affairs mean as much? Perhaps America would have remained isolationist without the war. Britain might have retained sovereignty over it's empire and kept America a backwater country in world affairs. IMO the 20th century turns on WWII, and WWII spun around the madman Hitler.

[ichi]

Lenin, his ideas and role in the rise of the socialism have flavored the entire world.

Or Elvis, he did a lot for us.

How about Hugh Hefner. We owe him a lot.

Maybe Einstein, or Henry Ford.

Homer Simpson

ichi

[Icerian Rex]

ADAM SMITH
... or whatever his name was.... the guy that penned the basic ideas of capitalism, via The Wealth of Nations. The dynamics between capitalism and communism have influenced the world throughout most of the 20th century, and were on a global scale (not that WWII wasn't, just that the majority of the fighting was confined to certain parts of the world, such as Europe, N.Africa, and Asia).... plus, the major players in WWII (Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, etc...) were merely the latest actors in a script that had been unfolding since the Franco-Prussian War of the late 1800's. Their script was one of the old guard, where kings and queens made policies, and where France, Germany, England, and Russia all at various times battled against one another. The ideologies of Adam Smith were the ideas of the newer way of thinking, where corporations on a global scale (for right or wrong) called the shots, or at least influenced those that did.

An aside: It's funny, because on the surface Capitalism appears to be a far more selfish form of economic system, whereas Communism was more benevolent to all, and yet it was the Capitalist countries that by and large had a better standard of living and greater freedom of expression. One need only look at some of the side by side comparisons, such as East vs. West Germany, or North vs. South Korea, to see how stark the contrast is. Even China (a communist country) didn't really begin to thrive until it began to allow elements of capitalism into it's society.

[Dillinger]

It was my understanding that Teddy told the Europeans to shove their ambitions in the Americas, but, unlike Monroe, he allowed America to get involved in European problems. This allowed for America's intervention in WWI and this introduced her as a world power. America's status as a world power would then be used to aid the Brits and Soviets in WWII, and to then go on to defeat (Maybe improper term, but oh well) the Soviets in the Cold War.

Hitler was undoubtedly a very important figure in the century, it all depends on how you look at it: Direct or Indirect. Directly, Hitler is the most important, but, indirectly, I think Teddy is.

[Walther, Duke of Rossmore]

Quote[/b] (Phatose @ Jan. 16 2004,20:07)]Gavrilo Princip, a serbian who assasinated Archduke Ferdinand leading to the chain reaction of alliances that became world war one. Which eventually lead into the Treaty of Versailles, which allowed Hitler to rise to power and start world war two.
Got to agree. Without that fatal shot the Old World of Europe, that was in so many ways a vestige of the medieval world, may never have ended. Tyhe new world and all its new horrors and freedoms would not have been possible.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Walther, Duke of Rossmore @ Jan. 17 2004,18:50)]Got to agree. Without that fatal shot the Old World of Europe, that was in so many ways a vestige of the medieval world, may never have ended. The new world and all its new horrors and freedoms would not have been possible.
World War one, just as World War two, was probably unavoidable at that moment in history. It was just the question when it would start. So, the Serb may have given the starting signal for the wat, but that is not the same as causing it.

BTW welcome to the org Walther http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[thrashaholic]

Quote[/b] ]The AEF arrived on the Continent during the most crucial stage of the war; France & Britain, having sustained enormous casualties over years of bloody fighting, were reaching the point of exhaustion; Germany, having finally knocked Russia out of the war and conquered the Balkans, was turning to hurl her full force at the Western Front. At that moment, our fresh troops helped blunt the last German all-out offensives, and also helped the Italians finally break the Austrian line in the Alps.

Actually, from what I've learned/read, America's militaristic contribution was pretty small, they sent a token force, filling some of the gaps in the French line. And anyway they only joined because of the sinking of the Lusitania and the interception by the British of a German telegram to the Mexican's offering to help regain lost territories. America's main contributions were monetary, lending both sides (but mostly the allies) vast amounts of money and, after the Lusitania, halting their trade with Germany. It was, IMO, in fact America who fuelled WW1 by trading with both sides for the early stages of the war. Which ever side lost the food etc. being sent by the Americans would lose the war, and it was Germany (thankfully) because of their policy of unrestricted U-boat warfare.

If anything it was the people of the Empire who gave most dearly in WW1 (the ANZACs, the Canadians, the Indians etc.) and kept the Allies in it by replenishing their troops throughout, rather than just a little at the end like the Americans (who was it who said? tch Americans, late for every war., j/k http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif )

Sorry for going on, I don't want to seem arrogant, and I mean no offence to any Americans reading it, but as far as I'm aware the USA did very little to help resolve the First Word War (second world war's a different matter though) and only jonied in when it suited them best (ie they weren't going to get any more money from Germany.

Sorry again(but it is true)

Thrashaholic

[thrashaholic]

Oh and the most influencial person.....Sir Isaac Newton, whom without we would not have the basis of any modern science, or Queen Elizabeth I, whom without we would not have had the British Empire (or maybe not even a Britain if the Spanish Armada had got its way), so no USA, so no power stand-offs between the Germans, French, Russians and British, so no modern history as we know it. (Arrrggg, cramp from typing too much http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )

Thrashaholic

[Cebei]

Century meaning 20th or 21st? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Not the past century's, but overall, my nominee is Karl Marx. There is hardly any individual who influenced quite a wide span of time.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

What about Einstein? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[TheSilverKnight]

Hmmm..most influental? I'd have to say Stalin, for he beat the Germans, and without him, the Russians would've been trampled on by the Panzer Tanks and stuff. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Ikken Hisatsu]

yeah except that it was the russian winter that defeated hitler, not the russians. that and fighting on two fronts.

[Demequis]

Quote[/b] (Icerian Rex @ Jan. 17 2004,05:24)]ADAM SMITH
... or whatever his name was.... the guy that penned the basic ideas of capitalism, via The Wealth of Nations. The dynamics between capitalism and communism have influenced the world throughout most of the 20th century, and were on a global scale (not that WWII wasn't, just that the majority of the fighting was confined to certain parts of the world, such as Europe, N.Africa, and Asia).... plus, the major players in WWII (Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, etc...) were merely the latest actors in a script that had been unfolding since the Franco-Prussian War of the late 1800's. Their script was one of the old guard, where kings and queens made policies, and where France, Germany, England, and Russia all at various times battled against one another. The ideologies of Adam Smith were the ideas of the newer way of thinking, where corporations on a global scale (for right or wrong) called the shots, or at least influenced those that did.

An aside: It's funny, because on the surface Capitalism appears to be a far more selfish form of economic system, whereas Communism was more benevolent to all, and yet it was the Capitalist countries that by and large had a better standard of living and greater freedom of expression. One need only look at some of the side by side comparisons, such as East vs. West Germany, or North vs. South Korea, to see how stark the contrast is. Even China (a communist country) didn't really begin to thrive until it began to allow elements of capitalism into it's society.
Adam Smith is a bit out of the time frame, if I recall. I think you want Keyes. :)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I would have to go along with Hitler tho Marx i think is a close second.Thought not my two favorite people.
As for americas contribution to WW1 how about all the weapons and supplies we provided the allies with.The war was just barely won as it was.Without america it might well have been lost or at best gone on for many more years.

[Aelwyn]

Quote[/b] (thrashaholic @ Jan. 17 2004,13:33)]or Queen Elizabeth I, whom without we would not have had the British Empire (or maybe not even a Britain if the Spanish Armada had got its way
In that case why not Sir Francis Drake? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

[jimmy]

Quote[/b] (Ikken Hisatsu @ Jan. 17 2004,16:12)]yeah except that it was the russian winter that defeated hitler, not the russians. that and fighting on two fronts.
the winter was a factor.? but also the battles at stalingrad/leningrad/moscow.the huge human and material resourses that the soviets had. plus the fact that the war in the east was a war of annihilation were no quarter was given and the soviets /eastern europeans were viwed as subhumans.this helped stiffen there fighting resolve plus hitlers meddling in military affairs didnt help eitheras opposed to stalin who begin to take on his generals advice.

[mercian billman]

Quote[/b] (Ikken Hisatsu @ Jan. 17 2004,16:12)]yeah except that it was the russian winter that defeated hitler, not the russians. that and fighting on two fronts.
I'd like to point out that it wasn't the Russian winter, and war two fronts that defeated the Germans but the Red Army.

The effect of the Russian winter is overated, in warfare weather is a neutral force which can work for or against you. The Wermacht chose to ignore this fact, and didn't supply their soldiers with adequate equipment. Also the soviet counter-attack at the gates of Moscow was launched during a blizzard, and carried out by troops recently shifted from Siberia.

German strategic planning also was lacking to say the least. The Germans couldn't decide if they wanted Moscow, or the Caucuses. Troops were constantly shifted from one place to another, bad logistics, the seige of Leningrad (The Germans had about three years to capture Leningrad, and it wasn't always winter) and other mistakes made German victory impossible.

While a war on two fronts didn't help the Germans the fact remains the majority of the fighting, and dying was done in the East. The majority of German soldiers served in the East along with the best of the Waffen-SS divisions Liebstandarte, Das Reich, Totenkopf, Wiking, and others saw most of their fighting on the eastern front (12th SS Hitler Jugund is an exception).

The Battle of Kursk sealed the fate of Germany no battle on the West front saw as much casualties as Kursk. At Kursk 900,000 Germans with 2500 Tanks, 10,000 Artillery pieces, and 2700 aircraft faced off against 1,300,000 Soviets with 300 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces and 3000 Aircraft. The last great set piece battle fought, with two armies roughly comparable in number, fought in JULY and the Germans failed to break the Red Army. The Germans won but, it was a phyrric victory.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It was all those things combined that defeated germany.The russian army alone would have bee slaughtered without the help of the rest of the world.My big question is would we have been better off if germany had defeated russia.I mean Stalin was worse than hitler in my opinion.Personaly we might have been better off to sit in england and let them beat the snot out of each other and then attacked the winner.Another very influential man was Edison I mena what has had a bigger effect on the world than electricity.Oh and Aelwyn I think the question was about the 2th century. I dont belive Elizabeth survived that long http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Somebody Else]

If my opinion were to be asked, Stalin would probably be my answer. Disregarding the wars, he muscled the Soviet Union from being a technologically backwards state to being one of the two major powers in the world for a good part of the 20th century. The Cold War would probably not have occured as it did if, say Trotsky had taken over from Lenin - it would probably have been hotter...

Hitler didn't really last long enough - though his psychological impact is quite lasting though... the Holocaust etc.

Gavril Princeps only served to trigger a war that was going to happen sooner or later - the political state of affairs at the time was not what one could call robust - the imperialism of several European countries was more of a cause of WW1.

Perhaps the scientists may be important, but really - if one person or another discovers anything... someone will anyway. Though Einstein was brighter than most.

I don't know much about Roosevelt... probably a reason for that... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[kiwitt]

Every public leader or significant figure is under the influence of a Business leaders Cabal.

Examples; When Margaret Thatcher wasn't happy about following their edicts, she was dumped and it looked like a conservative coup. When Bill Clinton looked like he would follow their edicts he was elected. When Tony Blair looked he would too he was elected. Bush and other followed.

Therefore, If you don't follow edicts, which support business, you will be dumped. If you do, you will be elected. There are thousands of sites dedicated to this and other conspiracies at work. e.g www.mega.nu

If you don't believe me, when was the last time Media made a big thing about Legislation as opposed to Personality. 100,000's of Anti-Globalisation protesters are simply ignored by the Business Cabal Media, unless there is Violence and making them seem bad or nutters.

In essense, the most significant person in History is yourself and those you love.

[Myrano]

I would dispute the fact that the US fueled the WWI, not because I am American (and hey, we probably did try to make as much money off of it as we could before sending in the troops... it's the American Way), but because I think it is unrealistic to pin so much blame (if it is indeed blame) outside of Europe. It was a European War, almost entirely, and while the US may have prolonged it (although that seems unlikely), the fuel for the war came from entirely within Europe. A fire in the fireplace doesn't burn wood in the shed. (OK, that was bad. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif ) But the point is, it was a war between the royal family of Europe fought for European reasons (It had been awhile since the last good war--not that that isn't an American sentiment).

[Myrano]

As far as the most influential person, from an American perspective I would have to say Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He turned America into what it is today. He set our government on the path to being a huge bureacracy; he made the presidency responsible for the economy (and hence, presidents live or die by the state of the economy when re-election comes around); he provided hope for an entire generation of Americans; he committed us into WWII, despite the enormous isolationist sentiment at the time; he truly introduced the national debt, and made us into a welfare state with the New Deal; he fought off crisis after crisis; and it was under his watch, at his direction, that the atom bomb was developed (though he died before he could see it used)... the list goes on. Everybody either loved him or hated him, nothing in between.

[Hetman_Koronny]

*bows*

Very subjective if you stress the word the most influential. If I was to try being objective I'd add one name to already listed....

Pope John Paul II

For numerous deeds,
- he's successfully continued changes within the Church
- he exerted great influence on the fall of communism, first in Poland but also in the rest of central/easter Europe
- for raising spirits and pouring hope to millions of hearts around the world.

*bows*

[Hetman_Koronny]

Quote[/b] (Myrano @ Jan. 19 2004,00:54)]As far as the most influential person, from an American perspective I would have to say Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He turned America into what it is today. He set our government on the path to being a huge bureacracy; he made the presidency responsible for the economy (and hence, presidents live or die by the state of the economy when re-election comes around); he provided hope for an entire generation of Americans; he committed us into WWII, despite the enormous isolationist sentiment at the time; he truly introduced the national debt, and made us into a welfare state with the New Deal; he fought off crisis after crisis; and it was under his watch, at his direction, that the atom bomb was developed (though he died before he could see it used)... the list goes on. Everybody either loved him or hated him, nothing in between.

*bows*

Yeeeah, don't forget he was the one to absolutely give in to Stalin (yet another 'great' man of 20th century) in Teheran first and in Jalta to finish that up. You know what I'm talking about don't you?

And yes, he did quite a few good things for the U.S. A good president he was, for his country, needless to say.

*bows*

[Aurelian]

I'd have to say Hitler, too. Teddy Roosevelt is my favorite president(for his personality and progressive inclinations), but Hitler probably beats him for total world impact.

Keynes would be an interesting answer for his role in wartime finance, setting up the post-war economic world order, and in laying out the basic economic theory that guided the world for the second half of the century.

About America in WWI: The U.S. basically stole a well-earned victory from the Germans. By the time U.S. forces got into the war, the Germans had knocked out the Russians, the Italians, the Serbians and the Romanians. In 1918, the Germans concentrated all their best troops on the Western Front and finally achieved the breakthrough that both sides had been looking for since 1915. Both the French and British armies were on their last legs. At the crucial hour, U.S. forces were available to stem the German advance and reinforce the Allied armies. One million fresh American troops were enough to tip the balance and allow the Allies to break Germany.

Of course, American supplies of munitions were also essential for the Allied war effort. The British and French armies began to run out of shells quite early in the war. The huge amounts of money U.S. industry was owed by the Allies was one of the primary U.S. reasons for finally getting militarily involved in the conflict. U.S. finance and industry couldn't allow the Allies to lose.

[Papewaio]

Quote[/b] (motorhead @ Jan. 17 2004,17:53)]I'd have to go with Hitler as most influential. If u could go back in time and pluck one person off the face of the earth, I can't imagine anyone else having as dramatic an impact.

My take, with no disrespect to these suggestions:
1) Serbian dude: Austria-Hungary was looking for a reason to invade Serbia, they likely would have generated another reason if not the Archduke.
2) Physics man: Was there nobody else who could have eventually discovered what he did? The only reason nuclear weapons had such a presence in the 20th century was the Cold War between East and West which can be traced back to WWII and Hitler. Outside of France and Japan, what countries rely on nuclear power today for more than token amounts of their energy needs?
3) Teddy: ok, i admit, i'm not fully cognizant of his achievements. Expanded the Monroe Doctrine - basically told Europe to piss off, central and south america were America's dominion now. Even the Theodore Roosevelt Association (www.theodoreroosevelt.org, chartered by act of Congress) talks primarily of his domestic achievements. Granted, u could argue what he did eventually had a worldwide impact, but i need a more simple 1:1 correlation.

What would have happened if no Hitler and no WWII? Would Teddy's impact on America and hence world affairs mean as much? Perhaps America would have remained isolationist without the war. Britain might have retained sovereignty over it's empire and kept America a backwater country in world affairs. IMO the 20th century turns on WWII, and WWII spun around the madman Hitler.
WWII was probably going to happen because of the way post WWI was handled. All Hitler did was drag Germany through the mud with the Nazis, if he was not involved it may have been no Holocaust and more capable generals in charge and hence a German EUrope.

The discovery of the atom was only part of what Rutherford did. Also in itself the discovery of the atom it is not just the lead to Nuclear weapons and power, it is the whole of subatomic physics (big bang... how the universe was born, transistors... like computers, mediciene... cat scans etc,). Then there is the whole leadership of Cavendish and the scientists it produced. Rutherford was to physics what Edison was to inventions.

[The_678]

Like many of the other people here I would have to Hitler was the most influential.

[Gen_Lee]

http://www.first-to-fly.com/
Not 1 but 2 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Ludens]

Kiwitt, I feel an urge to discuss the conspiracy you mention, but the main point about conspiracy-theories is that you cannot disprove them, so I will remain silent instead.

[Sun Tzui]

I'd have do go with Hitler on that one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

He's the man that triggered the whole WWII, and all the consequences that came from that.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif althoogh the serbian guy is a close second... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Myrano]

Quote[/b] (Hetman_Koronny @ Jan. 19 2004,08:14)]Yeeeah, don't forget he was the one to absolutely give in to Stalin (yet another 'great' man of 20th century) in Teheran first and in Jalta to finish that up. You know what I'm talking about don't you?
I am a little hazy on this but I think you are talking about essentially ceding land to what would become the Soviet bloc. (Poland and Eastern Europe, and maybe North Korea too? Not quite sure.) If this is indeed what you are referring to, then I would counter that the land that was placed in the control of the Soviets at the end of WWII was already occupied by Soviet troops; that is, they already owned the land that Roosevelt gave them. What was he going to say? Hey, so that land you conquered from the Germans and have tons of troops sitting on, give that to me and let it be democratic and capitalist http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[Myrano]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 20 2004,09:28)]Kiwitt, I feel an urge to discuss the conspiracy you mention, but the main point about conspiracy-theories is that you cannot disprove them, so I will remain silent instead.
You hit the nail on the head, man http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smash.gif

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Anyone aware we have changed of century recently?

And this century is a little young to judge who is going to be the most influential person...

But, hey, whatever http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif

Louis,

[kiwitt]

RE: Conspiracies

Yes, I agree, they are hard to prove or disprove. So we will leave it there.

So, as my last paragraph said In essense, the most significant person in History is yourself and those you love.

After that, well ...

- Churchill - (Early 20th Century) - He rallied the West to standup against tyranny

- Kissinger - (Late 20th Century) - He worked on breaking down barriers (e.g. China, Russia)

- Osama Bin Laden - (this Century) - He took away peoples freedoms, that they were normally used to.

[Dillinger]

Stupid technicalities, we don't need 'em http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Hetman_Koronny]

Quote[/b] (Myrano @ Jan. 20 2004,18:39)]I am a little hazy on this but I think you are talking about essentially ceding land to what would become the Soviet bloc. (Poland and Eastern Europe, and maybe North Korea too? Not quite sure.) If this is indeed what you are referring to, then I would counter that the land that was placed in the control of the Soviets at the end of WWII was already occupied by Soviet troops; that is, they already owned the land that Roosevelt gave them. What was he going to say? Hey, so that land you conquered from the Germans and have tons of troops sitting on, give that to me and let it be democratic and capitalist http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
*bows*

I am afraid you're wrong. The conference in Teheran was held in 1943 and the Soviets did not advance so far than. That's the first thing.

I was not talking about Poland only here. Roosevelt also agreed to Stalin's claim towards the Baltic countries when the Soviet army was only approaching that area, slowly kicking Nazi's butts towards west.

Giving in the Baltic countries and agreeing to set up the eastern borders on the Soviet Union Curzon line was a shameless act or ignorance and/or (unfounded) cowardice.

You know the case of the infamous Curzon line, don't you? Agreeing to that meant a lot. One of the worst consequences was a tragedy for millions of people who were forced to leave everything they had and migrate west.

Now, with all respect for you Myrano, no offence please... While I understand you may have not received enough historical training wherever you study, I was especially disappointed by this sentence:


Quote[/b] ]Hey, so that land you conquered from the Germans and have tons of troops sitting on, give that to me and let it be democratic and capitalist

Look. Even if this had been that way (you now know it hadn't) do you really think those, let's see, six nations with their 100 000 000+ people should be given in under the Bolshevics rule? Generations have been screwed because of this, mine being (hopefully) the last.

This Baltic countries/Curzon line looked like a sort of exchange but I have no idea what the great American president got in return. Stalin's 'friendship'?

Lastly, when I was in the States ages ago, I attended a High School in St. Louis where I graduated. History was my favourite domain then so, taking advantage of you cool education system, I took like three history courses. I really enjoyed them. Once during the American History class we discussed F.D. Roosevelt and I told this and a couple of other boring stories (the history teacher would often ask me to do it as he appreciated a slightly different approach/education/attitude I had). People were quite surprised at that time, so was I that they did not realize the human aspect in all that war, borders, Curzon lines etc.

Sorry for that personal story, I hope people get the point of it.

*bows*

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]I was not talking about Poland only here. Roosevelt also agreed to Stalin's claim towards the Baltic countries when the Soviet army was only approaching that area, slowly kicking Nazi's butts towards west.

Giving in the Baltic countries and agreeing to set up the eastern borders on the Soviet Union Curzon line was a shameless act or ignorance and/or (unfounded) cowardice.


I assume that you're aware that not giving in would most likely triggered a war between the West and Russia as a following up of the WWII and large parts of eastern Europe could have been nuked by the Americans.
Stalin would probably had attacked the West if they had taken Berlin first.

[Hetman_Koronny]

*bows*

Highly improbable at that time, just like all other 'what if...' kind of talking. The conflict between the Soviets and the U.S. (or, democratic countries generally) was inevitable, but could not have happened then. After the war it actually came true as the Cold War but we know that.

I seriously doubt the threat of war against the Soviets could be a reason for what Roosevelt agreed to in Teheran. The Soviets were weaker than the U.S. and their Wester allies at that time. It was Stalin who could be afraid of the war not the Allies.

*bows*

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (kiwitt @ Jan. 21 2004,04:11)]RE: Conspiracies
Yes, I agree, they are hard to prove or disprove. So we will leave it there.
*** Bows ***


Quote[/b] ]So, as my last paragraph said In essense, the most significant person in History is yourself and those you love.
True, yourself is the only real person in this world. Everyone else is just an walk-on in the theatre of live. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Gregoshi]

I have this strange feeling of deja vu. Hey guys, get a room http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif If you want to talk Stalin/FDR/Churchill, start a new thread. This one is talking about important/influential people of the 20th century. I know these three are contenders, but you've wandered off topic.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

well that link dodnt work 4 me.But I hope the words Bush and idiot are not connected to eachother here.If so we are really straying off topic.Id hate to dee this thread closed like the Bush 1 was.Lets stick 2 the topic

[Myrano]

In regards to Teheran, I bow to your (Hetman's) superior knowledge of the subject. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif
I still wonder, though, what exactly Roosevelt could have done. I don't see as how he had many options. Even if the Soviet troops weren't yet on the ground there, I don't doubt that Roosevelt knew that it would take a freak accident to prevent Stalin's troops from ending up there.
And sorry about that one line, it was rather tastless and should have been phrased better. I didn't realize you were so personally effected by this.