View Full Version : Best Leader during WWII
Who do you think was the best leader during WWII?
I don't want to offend anyone but I voted for Hitler because I believe that Hitler did the best in turning around his country from being a third world country with limited military into probably the best economically sound and strong country in a limited amount of time so that is why I believe Hitler was probably the best leader during WWII.
What, Hirohito didn't make the list?
PanzerJaeger
09-09-2005, 05:51
Hehe, if the author of the poll cannot even remember the names of the "Italian Dictator" and the "French President" - I doubt they are going to make much of an impact in said poll. ~D
As soon as I saw "Italian dictator" and "French president" I started looking for a "gah" option. ~:confused:
Papewaio
09-09-2005, 06:40
No Gah! no Vote!
USA... their standard of living went up during WWII.
Where did the great Axis leaders lead their countries to?
One country ended up bisected in half with a wall through its capital.
The other ended up living up to its name of the Rising Sun not once but twice as it was the first country to have nuclear weapons dropped on them.
====
Australia had a interesting side effect of all the Italian prisoners of war they picked up... they ended up being released into the local community to work, the cane farmers found them such good workers that they ended up being married into the families... they must have been the best treated POWs.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-09-2005, 13:57
A few of those entries needed names... ~:)
Tojo, Chiang Kai-Shek, Mao, and Truman were all considered "major" players at the time (we can forgive the absence of Atlee), but not listed.
The USA really blossomed as a result of the war, as the 1950s showed, and Russia became a superpower (hollow, but no one knew/believed that), but I think a good argument could be made for either Sweden or Switzerland, who smugly played off both sides against one another and came out of the war with roaring economies themselves -- without significant casualties. Some brains involved there.
Seamus
Meneldil
09-09-2005, 14:13
I think I'll vote for that silly european leader, though I'm considering the american folk and the asian dude ~D
caesar44
09-09-2005, 14:56
I don't want to offend anyone but I voted for Hitler because I believe that Hitler did the best in turning around his country from being a third world country with limited military into probably the best economically sound and strong country in a limited amount of time so that is why I believe Hitler was probably the best leader during WWII.
~D :bigcry: ~D :bigcry: ~D :bigcry: ~D :bigcry: ~D :bigcry: ~D :bigcry: ~D :bigcry: ~D :bigcry: ~D :bigcry:
Kagemusha
09-09-2005, 16:26
I would vote for the other.Marshall Mannerheim of Finland.He had only bad choises to choose from during the war and managed his post better then well. :bow:
Seamus Fermanagh
09-09-2005, 18:45
I would vote for the other.Marshall Mannerheim of Finland.He had only bad choises to choose from during the war and managed his post better then well. :bow:
Not a bad vote. He did lose both the direct conflict with the Sovs (because of #s not quality) and by siding with the Krauts for so long, but his range of options did more or less suck. Others would probably have done a lot worse.
Seamus
Duke Malcolm
09-09-2005, 19:03
Were there not 2 French presidents, That of the Free French Government in Exile, and of Vichy France?
caesar44
09-09-2005, 19:56
Were there not 2 French presidents, That of the Free French Government in Exile, and of Vichy France?
Until 1958 , the president in France was like the king in Britain today . the power was in the hands of the P.M. .
The Stranger
09-09-2005, 20:13
i dont think you must only state nation leaders...i mean churchill sucked as a general but was a great leader...or is this in general...i think the question is to general ~D
Kaiser of Arabia
09-09-2005, 21:11
Italian "Dictator"- Mussolini (Great Man)
French President: First it was Daladier, but for the majority of the war, it was De Gualle.
I'm probably going to have to say Mussolini, because my political beleifs fall closest to his own (I'm more leftwing in some aspects, more right in others). Hitler, with the exception of the Holocost, wasn't a bad leader either, though his economic policies are too, well, socialist for me.
Marcellus
09-09-2005, 21:23
I would say Churchill. He was the most inspirational, the one who boosted morale the most at a time when morale would have been very low otherwise.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2005, 21:33
Both FDR and Stalin. They achieved the same thing--Victroy over their enemies, a bolstering of the economy, a radical change in the way their countries worked.
The means do so however, were quite different.
Stalin plunged his country into economic disaster. Oh, sure, his friends and the scientists did real well, but think about the peasants, the regular soldiers...
caesar44
09-09-2005, 23:48
Hitler, with the exception of the Holocost, wasn't a bad leader either, though his economic policies are too, well, socialist for me.
Belive me Kaiser , I am really trying to understand this , really . how can any one say that he was great , best , good etc'
After 12 years , Germany was hell . 10,000,000 people less , divided , no economy , no nothing , so how can he be some thing positive ? What , his craziness ? his madness ? His hatred to any thing except himself ? His beauty ? His nose ? His hair ? His vision of smashing all minorities ? His belief in Satanism ? His prosecutions against Jew and Christians ? His militarism ? His boots ? His stupid swastica ? His ideas about Aryans ? What ?
Again I say , tell me some thing new (not the "all the Germans had jobs" thing) , some thing to make me understand how people think of him as a good thing .
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2005, 23:51
His moustache. ~D
And Hitler didn't invent the Swastika. If there are Celtic pagans here, you would have just REALLY offended some of them. Calling the swastika stupid is like calling the cross stupid (except God is real. The Celtic gods aren't.). Its insulting a religous symbol someone pirated.
caesar44
09-10-2005, 00:02
His moustache. ~D
And Hitler didn't invent the Swastika. If there are Celtic pagans here, you would have just REALLY offended some of them. Calling the swastika stupid is like calling the cross stupid (except God is real. The Celtic gods aren't.). Its insulting a religous symbol someone pirated.
Read the post again , I have said "his swastica" not the pagan Celts swastica , btw , all 3 of them ?
Vercings , Lorgincs and Kertanics - I am sorry if I offended you .
And the Hindus... Don't forget the Hindus. And a whole lot of other people.
But I fail to see the difference between Hitler's swastika and the swastika of the Samnites for instance. It is hardly a good argument, and he did mention the Holocaust as being bad.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-10-2005, 00:12
delete, rather pointless
Kaiser of Arabia
09-10-2005, 00:20
Belive me Kaiser , I am really trying to understand this , really . how can any one say that he was great , best , good etc'
After 12 years , Germany was hell . 10,000,000 people less , divided , no economy , no nothing , so how can he be some thing positive ? What , his craziness ? his madness ? His hatred to any thing except himself ? His beauty ? His nose ? His hair ? His vision of smashing all minorities ? His belief in Satanism ? His prosecutions against Jew and Christians ? His militarism ? His boots ? His stupid swastica ? His ideas about Aryans ? What ?
Again I say , tell me some thing new (not the "all the Germans had jobs" thing) , some thing to make me understand how people think of him as a good thing .
He brought back to Germany somthing they had lost after World War One, Pride. And that means more than any amount of lives or money.
AntiochusIII
09-10-2005, 00:32
He brought back to Germany somthing they had lost after World War One, Pride. And that means more than any amount of lives or money.You mean irrational fascist nationalism? And yes, it seems to mean more than any amount of lives or money.
We're talking about the 20th century here.
Ok people... take a step backwards and read again. This is about the leaders DURING WWII. So whatever they did before the 1st of September 39 at the very earliest (and later for a number of others) simply does not count.
Stalin's purges and the 5-years plan? Out the window with that.
Hitler's strengthening of Germany and he return to major power status? Boot it.
ect ect.
You get the point?
Hitler turned the swastika sideways and made it crooked and I never said that Hitler was a good man I just said that he made his country stronger militarily and economically and if WWII is anyones fault it is the French and British for not invading Germany when they had the chance.
I'm really sorry for forgetting Japan on this list and I did know Mussolini's name it just slipped my mind at the time and I don't really care who the French President was and I thank everyone for voting and posting in my thread thank you.
I voted Winston ~;) , he was solid as a rock, but I also feel Stalin did
make some wise decisions regarding generals for the army, and 'driving' them
to accomplish their missions. Hitler did more to hurt as a leader and Roosevelt
was leader of a wakened 'beast'.
caesar44
09-10-2005, 16:08
He brought back to Germany somthing they had lost after World War One, Pride. And that means more than any amount of lives or money.
What can I say ? Maybe heil Hitler ?
caesar44
09-10-2005, 16:11
and he did mention the Holocaust as being bad.
Chee , thanks !!!
edyzmedieval
09-10-2005, 16:17
Hitler ~D
They were all idiots, especially Hitler and Stalin. Churchill didn't do anything, the Americans took him from the grave.
Truman and Roosevelt, especially the last one, are something. And Hirohito.
Incongruous
09-10-2005, 23:34
Umm are you being sarcastic?
Churchill didn't do anything?
I hope your pulling a joke, because if you aren't I am going to go and have a cry.
Louis VI the Fat
09-11-2005, 00:17
Churchill.
By june 1940, with the defeat of France, the European continent was contolled by fascists.
The USSR was still allied to Germany, and being totalitarian itself had some designs of it's own too.
The isolationist forces in the US still had the upper hand and believed the world conflagration would not affect the US.
In Asia, the Japanese were unstoppable.
Leaving the British Empire as the last, sole bastion of hope against totalitarianism and tyranny.
That they continued to fight, against all odds, was by no means self-explanatory. It was in large part owed to the stubborn character of Churchill. With brilliant conviction, recklessness and utter contempt to fear he managed to urge a people to carry on the war alone and not seek a peace.
To me it was the most glorious moment of an entiry age, the defining moment of the twentieth century.
That in the end they won too was a greater achievement than any empire could possibly dream of. It will be recognised in a thousand years time as their finest hour.
Japan was not at war with UK at that time. Had they done that it would have pushed America into war, the entire point of American policies towards Japan was to keep resources from her, something she would get from British holdings. So for the time being the east was 'safe'.
Rodion Romanovich
09-11-2005, 09:30
I think Churchill, of those mentioned on the list. He knew his own weaknesses and let people who knew better do what they could. A leader without prestige in that matter is hard to find these days.
The Stranger
09-11-2005, 12:04
yeah churchil was a good political leader..military he sucked
yeah churchil was a good political leader..military he sucked
Well his legacy says that much, but actual events at the end of war proves that he wasn't much of a political leader. Remember Clement Atlee? Kicked Churchill out as soon as the war was over.
Churchill was a superb wartime leader, but he was not a good peacetime leader. He was pigheaded and all too stubborn. Those are great traits in times of war if you are limited in your military interventions. Luckily for Britain he was limited in that, otherwise it might have gone very differently.
He could by the vitue of his personality galavanize the population towards ever greater achievements, and he could fight with words so that the population felt something was being done. Further his voice was confident and strong, another great thing. Have you ever heard one of Stalin's radiospeeches? His voice is flat and bland... Hardly something that would drive men and women to do their best. But the NKVD did however do that.
I would say that Churchill was sort of a rallying point, something all could look to for comfort and safety, and of course determination. A beacon.
Marcellus
09-11-2005, 13:24
This poll is about the best leader during WWII
Churchill may not have been a great general, but that wasn't his job. He was the leader of Britain, and inspired Britain to fight on. He appointed others to be generals.
Churchill was a bad peacetime leader, his vision of the future of Britain after WWII was nothing compared to Attlee's vision of the welfare state. But during the war he was a great leader.
This poll is about the best leader during WWII
Churchill may not have been a great general, but that wasn't his job. He was the leader of Britain, and inspired Britain to fight on. He appointed others to be generals.
Churchill was a bad peacetime leader, his vision of the future of Britain after WWII was nothing compared to Attlee's vision of the welfare state. But during the war he was a great leader.
Yup... ~:)
Meneldil
09-11-2005, 22:23
French President: First it was Daladier, but for the majority of the war, it was De Gualle.
Wrong, and wrong ~;)
The worst leader among those were probably Mussolini and Hiro Hito. The first sucked basically at everything he did, and the second had absolutely no power, and was merely a tool in the hands of the japanese generals.
Sjakihata
09-11-2005, 22:32
I don't find any of these leaders competent, but I voted for Stalin, since he practically won the war (or his country did) and he industralized USSR as well. I would have prefered the Gah! option though!
caesar44
09-11-2005, 22:56
Hey , what about the Swiss P.M. ? (his name ? not important...) , he managed to save his country from the war !!! :balloon2:
caesar44
09-11-2005, 22:59
Damn , there were 7 Swiss P.M. between 1939 and 1945 !
Duke Malcolm
09-11-2005, 23:06
yes, but he didn't go to war, and hence wasn't in the 2nd world war...
yes, but he didn't go to war, and hence wasn't in the 2nd world war...
Ah, but this is "during" World War II, not "involved in" it. I'm sure there was a tribal leader somewhere in the world who did a better job than everyone on the list combined.
caesar44
09-11-2005, 23:50
Aha , during !
Ah, but this is "during" World War II, not "involved in" it. I'm sure there was a tribal leader somewhere in the world who did a better job than everyone on the list combined.
Ahhh... Now all we need to do is send missionaries or emmisaries to every little tribe and have them tell their tribal history to us, then we can determine who was the best leader. Easy enough... Who volounteers for the interior of New Guinea? I'll pick the Sami.
Franconicus
09-12-2005, 13:09
He brought back to Germany somthing they had lost after World War One, Pride. And that means more than any amount of lives or money.
Pride? You mean Germans had more pride after the war? Because if the lost war? The ruined towns? The millions killed? The Holocaust? The crimes all over Europe? I cannot see how Hitler has raised the German pride.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-12-2005, 15:34
Good Grief! I am about to write in support of an Englishman (scores of Irish ancestors are no doubt spinning over this).
Churchill the man:
Resourceful, Intelligent, Brave, Egotistical, and Tenacious.
He escaped from a POW camp during one of the nastier guerilla wars of the 20th century, participated in what may have been the last cavalry charge to strike home on an enemy in history (depends how you define it), and faced personal adversity repeatedly. Few political leaders have risen to prominence without a strong ego to propel them.
Churchill the commander:
Good Naval Strategist, Decisive, Ill-prepared for Industrialized Warfare.
As head of the Admiralty, Churchill was vital in mobilizing the British Navy early and concentrating his forces at Scapa Flow at the outset of conflict -- even before Britain went to war. The man had no problem making a decision. Had he not done so, the Germans would have been positioned for their only real opportunity to concentrate the High Seas fleet against pieces of the Grand Fleet and defeat it in detail. This was one of only two threats to Great Britain that could have outright defeated them during the war.
At the Dardanelles, Churchill had the right strategy, but not the tools to complete it. Taking the Bosporus et. al. would have removed the Ottomans from the war and opened an easy link to Tsarist Russia for direct support (such as the support which saved Italy in 1917/1918), or even created a wider front in the Balkans. However, Churchill failed to understand the defensive power of even moderately determined troops (and underestimated the tenacity of the Turks -- who were so-so in the Middle East but fought VERY hard for their homeland), contributing to the failed effort at Gallipoli. In his defense, virtually all military commanders prior to 1917 were clueless as to how to overcome the defensive power of entrenchments, artillery, and the machine gun. Churchill was weak here, but so were most of the others.
Churchill the Political Leader:
Tenacious, Tenacious, Tenacious, Inspiring.
Churchill interfered far less with his field commanders as PM, usually allowing the professionals to do their job. His "never quit" attitude was integral in maintaining English morale through the early portion of the war, and he was relentless in pursuit of the most important component of English success -- dragging the USA into the fight at Britain's side. His leadership allowed England to check the Axis advance on a number of peripheral fronts, and to maintain a "close-in" strategic base for the eventual application of the huge industrial base represented by the USA and portions of the Commonwealth. If he had any strategic flaws, it was his focus on the European and Med theatres of action to the exclusion of the Pacific. Again, he is hardly the only leader to have made that mistake -- Roosevelt included.
On the whole, no other leader during WW2 did so much with so little for the benefit of so many -- Winnie's place in history was earned.
Seamus
Franconicus
09-12-2005, 15:40
Franco did best. He kept his country out of the war.
On the whole, no other leader during WW2 did so much with so little for the benefit of so many -- Winnie's place in history was earned.
I've never heard it him called that before.
The Stranger
09-12-2005, 19:47
Well his legacy says that much, but actual events at the end of war proves that he wasn't much of a political leader. Remember Clement Atlee? Kicked Churchill out as soon as the war was over.
Churchill was a superb wartime leader, but he was not a good peacetime leader. He was pigheaded and all too stubborn. Those are great traits in times of war if you are limited in your military interventions. Luckily for Britain he was limited in that, otherwise it might have gone very differently.
He could by the vitue of his personality galavanize the population towards ever greater achievements, and he could fight with words so that the population felt something was being done. Further his voice was confident and strong, another great thing. Have you ever heard one of Stalin's radiospeeches? His voice is flat and bland... Hardly something that would drive men and women to do their best. But the NKVD did however do that.
I would say that Churchill was sort of a rallying point, something all could look to for comfort and safety, and of course determination. A beacon.
hitler also had that...reminds me...we once listenedto one of his radiospeeches in slowmotion... ~:eek: really scary
Colovion
09-12-2005, 21:24
Can anyone think of many leaders in modern times whom has such great oration? It's as if the masses are now afraid of such mastery of oratory because of people like Hitler and the things they are capable with such passionate speeches.
Well, the point is really, what is there to be passionate about in politics these days? It is very likely that those who have the passion are indeed the ones we fear. Could you imagine a vivid orate for Labour in UK? Or an energetic wordjuggler of SDP in Germany? No... They don't have enough to work with.
Last person to have been anywhere near this positon was/is a certain Jörg Haider in Austria, but his views fit his strong rethoric. So I doubt it is the orators themsevles we fear, but the viewpoints they stand for most often.
Churchill wasn't really an orator, but with prepared speeches his often simplistic words came out as something that was very soothing for concerned people.
Hitler on the other hand was an oratory demagogue, always keeping his listeners on their toes, never staying still long enough for people to realize what he was talking about. He left that for Göbbles.
One was calming the other agitating. The agitating pattern is very much easier to be captured by in a peaceful world, I mean the pattern of Churchill is pretty much that of Chirac now... Would you call him impressive as an orator? I wouldn't, but then again I don't have to, or want to listen to him. Someone aggressive an energetic is far more interesting.
Shaka_Khan
09-14-2005, 08:46
Not that I like Franco, what do you people think about him? He was neutral during the war, and switched sides before and after the war.
Kagemusha
09-14-2005, 09:31
I make few points here to support my statement about Mannerheim.He was the only head of state that controlled both the politics and military affairs of his country.There was a big problem during the Continuation war when Finland should release herself from the alliance with Germany.If there would have been peace with the Soviet Union too early the Nazi germany could have retaliated if the peace would have been made too late it would have lead to a Soviet occupation of Finland.About the peace with Soviet Union we have to remember that Battles before the peace on all fronts were victorious.There was the Front of Karelian Isthmus where the decisive battle was fought at Tali-Ihantala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala) The Northern Karelias front saw also a decisive battle between Finnish and Soviet forces at Ilomantsi where two Soviet Divisions were encircled and destroyed.So we have to remember that militarily speaking Finns had the initiave when the peace came.Ofcourse it would have been a suicide for Finland to continue the war because Finland was highly dependant on German food supplies because virtually all Finnish men were fighting at the front.Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim#An_Officer_in_the_Imperial_Russian_Army) is a short biography of C.G.E Mannerheim for those are intrested. :bow:
General De Gaulle, French. Starting as a rebel, without troops (or few), being dislike by his allies (or distrusted) and even by his own people, he succeeded to impose himself as the only legitimate representative of France, to save French Independence, and to be recreate an army from scratch… Not bad for a leader…
Louis VI the Fat
09-16-2005, 00:03
Not that I like Franco, what do you people think about him? I think he is burning in hell right now... ~:handball:
Franconicus
09-16-2005, 06:59
I think he is burning in hell right now... ~:handball:
~:cheers:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.