Great leaders of History - Political Forum

joep182 · 07-05-2007, 08:52 PM

Inspired by the most evil tyrants thread i thought one looking at peoples opinions on the worlds greatest leaders would be interesting.

Lenin
Castro
Allende
Andropov
Atlee
and not yet historical but Chavez has got 2 be in there

any thoughts ?

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 07-06-2007, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joep182

Inspired by the most evil tyrants thread i thought one looking at peoples opinions on the worlds greatest leaders would be interesting.

Lenin
Castro
Allende
Andropov
Atlee
and not yet historical but Chavez has got 2 be in there

any thoughts ?

I certainly wouldn't call Lenin great. All he did was to usher in communism, which was a disaster for Russia and all the states surrounding Russia, and then to pass off political power to one of the worst tyrants in history.

Castro is not great in that he has not done anything great, same goes for Allende. Greatness implies two things: (1) a great accomplishment and (2) great = extremely important for many people. In so far that Castro and Allende were leaders of small nations that really didn't influence anyone outside of their nations, whatever they did was automatically not great.

There are a great many people you could put for greatest leaders and it might help to limit how many you can list and perhaps in what time period. I'll take a crack at it:

In sheerly political terms I would list Muhammad, and then Jesus Christ
Queen Elizabeth
George Washington
Emperor Xin Shi Huang Di
Deng Xiaoping
Bismark
Peter the Great
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Gandhi

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 07-06-2007, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neorealist234

prophets aside (excellent adds though WEB) my list would look pretty much like WEB's but no:

I didn't add in Muhammad just because Islam is so widely spread, but because he started a major political dynasty: i.e. Islamic Caliphates.

Ummayad Caliphate

Abbasid Caliphate

Ottoman Empire

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

Deng, FDR, or Bismark

FDR is debatable but Deng and Bismark should probably be in there. You take Bismark out, and you don't have Germany anymore, just a Prussian Kingdom. No Germany means no WWI and no WWII. Deng Xiaoping turned China from communism to capitalism, and thus is creating perhaps the most powerful nation on earth (in the future).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

Instead I would add Gaius Julius Ceasar, Lincoln, and Constantine the Great

Lincoln vs FDR is debatable. There might have been no FDR had there been no Lincoln, so you could argue that.

As for Caesar, I don't think he was "great." Certainly his military victories were amazing, but I think that he started the tradition of coups and Roman civil wars, which is what led to Rome's downfall. Constantine I think could be in there, but I don't know enough about him.

WEB

J.Locke777 · 07-06-2007, 03:01 AM

I truly hope that the OP is being sarcastic about that list. these are in no particular order, but some of my list of greats are as follows:

1) Queen Victoria
2) Franklin D. Roosevelt
3) Julius Caeser
4) George Washington
5) Ghandi

If your list is serious; you forgot Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao. What kind of person puts those Tyrants on the list of greats?

Oedipus Rex · 07-06-2007, 03:37 AM

Hands down... Ronald Reagan.

joep182 · 07-06-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

I certainly wouldn't call Lenin great. All he did was to usher in communism, which was a disaster for Russia and all the states surrounding Russia, and then to pass off political power to one of the worst tyrants in history.

Castro is not great in that he has not done anything great, same goes for Allende. Greatness implies two things: (1) a great accomplishment and (2) great = extremely important for many people. In so far that Castro and Allende were leaders of small nations that really didn't influence anyone outside of their nations, whatever they did was automatically not great

I think Lenin should be included BECAUSE he ushered in Communism. Had this not happened the Nazi's would almost certainly have won the war. It was the effective planning of Communism that allowed for the rapid industrialisation of Russia. If Russia had not made such quick progress the Germans would not have had to tie up the vast majority of their troops on the Eastern Front. That aside he laid the foundations that made an illeterate nation literate, educated the uneducated and brought an end to exploitation. I think these things make him pretty great.

I accept your thoughts on Allende and Castro, although to be fair no one has inspired the standing up to imperialist bullies quite like Castro has. This for me justifies his inclusion.

FRYandBENDER · 07-06-2007, 09:07 AM

Patton?

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 07-06-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joep182

I think Lenin should be included BECAUSE he ushered in Communism. Had this not happened the Nazi's would almost certainly have won the war. It was the effective planning of Communism that allowed for the rapid industrialisation of Russia. If Russia had not made such quick progress the Germans would not have had to tie up the vast majority of their troops on the Eastern Front. That aside he laid the foundations that made an illeterate nation literate, educated the uneducated and brought an end to exploitation. I think these things make him pretty great.

I don't know if it's true that Russia had to be communist to beat Nazi Germany. My early 20th century Russian history is not the best. I am not sure if Russia would have had a democratic system without the Communists, however as long as the tsars got thrown out then that opens up a lot of opportunity for Russia: including a free market, greater economic growth (no Ukrainian famine) and no purge of the Red Army in the 1930's.

This would have helped Russia to fight the Germans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joep182

I accept your thoughts on Allende and Castro, although to be fair no one has inspired the standing up to imperialist bullies quite like Castro has. This for me justifies his inclusion.

No one has stood up, yet still for all that standing up, he was little more than a nusiance to the US, and thus not deserving of being called great and put in the same league as those others who affected world history.

WEB

Oedipus Rex · 07-06-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joep182

I think Lenin should be included BECAUSE he ushered in Communism. Had this not happened the Nazi's would almost certainly have won the war. It was the effective planning of Communism that allowed for the rapid industrialisation of Russia. If Russia had not made such quick progress the Germans would not have had to tie up the vast majority of their troops on the Eastern Front.

Uh.... the United States kept the Russians supplied during WW2.

joep182 · 07-06-2007, 10:58 AM

The truth about Soviet industrialisation 1927-37 :

coal production from 35.4 m. tons to 128 m. tons
oil 11.7 m tons to 28.5 m. tons
pig iron 3.3 m. tons to 14.5
Steel 4.0 m. tons to 26.9
Supply of Electricity increases 700%

Theres were soviet supplies came from.

There's also the point worth noting that millions desserted under the Tsar, under communism 20 million people died to save the world from Faschism. The Soviets gave more lifes at Stalingrad than the US and UK gave the whole war.