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.
Printable View
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.
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'.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
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.
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... ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
Wrong, and wrong ~;)Quote:
French President: First it was Daladier, but for the majority of the war, it was De Gualle.
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.
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!
Hey , what about the Swiss P.M. ? (his name ? not important...) , he managed to save his country from the war !!! :balloon2:
Damn , there were 7 Swiss P.M. between 1939 and 1945 !
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Aha , during !
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
Exactly.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
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
Franco did best. He kept his country out of the war.
I've never heard it him called that before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
hitler also had that...reminds me...we once listenedto one of his radiospeeches in slowmotion... ~:eek: really scaryQuote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
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.
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.
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 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 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…
I think he is burning in hell right now... ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat