@SuperbattleshipYamato hard to argue against any of this really. The IJN was so far gone by this point in the war that there’s not really much they could have done to salvage their situation one way or another. The bit about the allies not having many LSTs in general is something I never knew before though.
Who was the GREATEST
-
Are you thinking of John Lennon, who got wasted in NYC a while back, or Nikolai Lenin, who helped start the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia?
-
Both were brought up. The first as a joke.
-
Churchill man of the Century? Maybe. English people think that Churhill is “the greatest Briton of all time”. I have always been a fan of Churchill. The man that stood alone against Hitler. The reason for the Allied Victory in WWII.
However, the more time pass from the WWII, the more documents become available, new information may be used by the Historian to made more accurated analysis.
I found really interesting the following book:
I am not completely in agreement with the author but his analysis is based on facts and documents that cannot be ignored. Furhtermore, the final parallelism with actual world situation is worrying.
-
Thank you for the post Romulus. I have been wanting to read, Pat Buchanan’s CHURCHILL, HITLER, AND THE
UNNECESSARY WAR.I just do not have the time.
-
Well, Churchill by far.
John Lenon?
Reagan?Come on….be serious!
-
Why would John Lennon be in consideration for man of the century? That doesn’t make any sense.
-
He sold the greatest number of records in the 1960’s that’s gotta count for something…right?
Perhaps it’s a misprint. perhaps he meant to say Jack lemmon?
I like Vic Morrow better or Curt Jurgens
-
:-D That’s hilarious Imperious. True though, he (the Beatles really) did have an incredible impact on MUSIC in this last century. Kind of off the topic, I had the priviledge of talking to a veteran who flew the F4U-3 at the end of WW2 and during Korea. 8 kills and 126 sorties. He had some great stories of dogfighting. I love talking to guys like that. They never talk about their experiences with great emotion. Veteran Pilots have this mannerism of speaking in a (down to business) demeanor, even about intense dogfights. They really are their own breed.
He talked about having a Zero on his 6 and 12 like it was nothing. Banked hard and killed his engine for a moment, (dead duck as he put it) and watched the zero go straight past him. Pulled in and hit him right in his cabin. Then he spoke about his wing man and him taking out the other zero and both getting credited with the kill. Good guy! (He bought a camera from me too!)
-
Depends on the criteria.
However, HITLER affected all the other’s on the list in some way or another, and allowing some to be even on the list. What would these guys positions be without HITLER?Lets look at the list in order:
1. FDR - His new deal was not ending the depression only easing it, it took HITLER starting WW2 and the corresponding Japanese actions to pull the US out of economic disaster and on the road to Superpower status. If HITLER had not started War in 1939, FDR’s third term election might not have occured. (it was not as big a blowout as his previous two elections, the war in Europe might have been the deciding factor.)
2. Churchill was generally considered something of an adventurer and gambler and was not really viewed as a super success either as a politician or military leader before HITLER came to power. After HITLER churchill became the outspoken critic of the Nazis and appeasement and as a longtime supporter of the survival of the British Empire (not democracy for all peoples). Only after the US entered did Britian change to its pro democracy commonwealth idea. (Ghandi directly benefitted from this change by the British in securing an independent India, something that the British were not so gung-ho about in 1939. Sure it probably would have happened at some point but it did not happen with churchill in power)
3. Stalin would have been a 2 bit dictator of a crappy third world country blissfully abusing his own people if not for HITLER invading his country and forcing it to build its armed forces into a juggernaut and giving Stalin the power edge he needed to take and hold eastern Europe and become a “superpower”.
5. Franz Ferdinand is not the man of the centry although his death did help propel the direction that the 20th century took. However if not for Franz…HITLER would not have come to power had WW1 not been fought. I know this is a stretch but frankly in no way was Ferdiand man of anything.
6. Albert Einstein - a top notch guy who had to flee HITLER (and fortunately brought him to this country) and whose theories help lead to the A bomb which was built in order to beat HITLER to it. His math and science models will last beyond the century. Probably the best choice.
7. Ronald Reagan, ignoring the democrat liberal cliche’s that always seem to haunt this very good president, but for Stalin building his empire in response to HITLER’s invasion and the resulting Cold War, Reagan would not have been in a position to (however it happened) oversee the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
Again all these men owe a great deal of their historical legacy to HITLER and his actions.
what is the criteria for man of the century? Goodness and light, impact, long term effects? -
Depends on the criteria.
However, HITLER affected all the other’s on the list in some way or another, and allowing some to be even on the list. What would these guys positions be without HITLER?Lets look at the list in order:
1. FDR - His new deal was not ending the depression only easing it, it took HITLER starting WW2 and the corresponding Japanese actions to pull the US out of economic disaster and on the road to Superpower status. If HITLER had not started War in 1939, FDR’s third term election might not have occured. (it was not as big a blowout as his previous two elections, the war in Europe might have been the deciding factor.)
2. Churchill was generally considered something of an adventurer and gambler and was not really viewed as a super success either as a politician or military leader before HITLER came to power. After HITLER churchill became the outspoken critic of the Nazis and appeasement and as a longtime supporter of the survival of the British Empire (not democracy for all peoples). Only after the US entered did Britian change to its pro democracy commonwealth idea. (Ghandi directly benefitted from this change by the British in securing an independent India, something that the British were not so gung-ho about in 1939. Sure it probably would have happened at some point but it did not happen with churchill in power)
3. Stalin would have been a 2 bit dictator of a crappy third world country blissfully abusing his own people if not for HITLER invading his country and forcing it to build its armed forces into a juggernaut and giving Stalin the power edge he needed to take and hold eastern Europe and become a “superpower”.
5. Franz Ferdinand is not the man of the centry although his death did help propel the direction that the 20th century took. However if not for Franz…HITLER would not have come to power had WW1 not been fought. I know this is a stretch but frankly in no way was Ferdiand man of anything.
6. Albert Einstein - a top notch guy who had to flee HITLER (and fortunately brought him to this country) and whose theories help lead to the A bomb which was built in order to beat HITLER to it. His math and science models will last beyond the century. Probably the best choice.
7. Ronald Reagan, ignoring the democrat liberal cliche’s that always seem to haunt this very good president, but for Stalin building his empire in response to HITLER’s invasion and the resulting Cold War, Reagan would not have been in a position to (however it happened) oversee the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
Again all these men owe a great deal of their historical legacy to HITLER and his actions.
what is the criteria for man of the century? Goodness and light, impact, long term effects?Nice post! You make a great case for Hitler. Hitler and Churchill are ‘nose to nose’ in this poll.
-
Neither of them would be the ‘greatest’ w/o the other. I say both of them are a tie for first place. Hitler needed a nemeses and Winston was up for the task.
-
OK,
Let’s all take a deep breath here and analyze the facts. And I do understand exactly what site we are on and that WWII figures are going to get more action than normal but I didn’t expect as much Churchill and Hitler jock riding as we got.
It is NOT possible for a country the size of Germany, c.a. 1945, to control the entire planet. History has shown this time and again. Pick an empire (Roman, Egyptian, Greek, Mongol, etc) and you’ll see that the larger they get, the harder they are to maintain and eventually collapse and have to reorganize into a smaller more manageable size. Even if Germany had gained the British Isles and Moscow (highly improbable), those two countries would still have existed and continued to fight. Recall that Napoleon took Moscow and all the Russians did was wait until the winter drove him out and then harassed him all the way out of their country. Plus, the British Empire and navy would still have existed and with Japan beaten by the Allies, Germany would have been largely contained within Europe and Russia. Even that would have been problematic to control. And with Hitler’s natural death it is entirely likely, and history backs me up again here, that Germany’s control over it’s empire would splinter.
Hitler’s Germany was NOT the greatest threat to the human race that has ever existed. Barring an ice age, a supervolcanic event, or a large asteroid impact, post WWII Soviet Union could be considered a greater threat simply by virtue of far greater manpower and nuclear weapons.
And Churchill and Britain weren’t the only ones left to stand in Hitler’s way, either. Not even close. Let’s just assume, for sh*ts and giggles that both Russia and Great Britain had fallen to Germany. What pitiful rabble would be left to stand before the mighty Wermacht? There was still Free France. And despite the German stranglehold on France, the French resistance was still rather active. There was also the US, Canada, and Australia that collectively outproduced Germany by a great deal. And Africa. And India with nigh a billion people to draw manpower from. Oh, and did I mention China? Yeah, I guess that wouldn’t be nearly enough. If Britain and Churchill had been conquered, nothing would have stopped Hitler. :roll:
So now that I have wiped away the Hitler and Churchill shaped stars from everybody’s eyes we can look at them as important historical figures that changed the world and how we look at it now and in the future but NOT Hitler as the leader of the virtually unstoppable hordes of Hell and Churchill as the lone hero standing at Hell’s gate valiantly holding them back. They were highly charismatic and powerful leaders, but both were terribly flawed individuals.
BUT,
after FDR, and Hitler, and Stalin, and Churchill, and Reagan, and Archduke Ferdinand, and Lennon (who gets a bad rap here but had a huge impact on the people of his time), and Lenin, and even World War II as a whole are all relegated to historical footnotes in the very distant future, Albert Einstein’s name will still be said with reverence in the hallowed halls of academia and as a sarcastic insult to someone who did something stupid until likely the end of mankind.
And THAT is all that needs to be said. Except, good day, sirs.
-
Hitler’s Germany was NOT the greatest threat to the human race that has ever existed. Barring an ice age, a supervolcanic event, or a large asteroid impact, post WWII Soviet Union could be considered a greater threat simply by virtue of far greater manpower and nuclear weapons.
your right. Krakatoa was the greatest followed by Tunguska
-
OK,
So now that I have wiped away the Hitler and Churchill shaped stars from everybody’s eyes we can look at them as important historical figures that changed the world and how we look at it now and in the future but NOT Hitler as the leader of the virtually unstoppable hordes of Hell and Churchill as the lone hero standing at Hell’s gate valiantly holding them back. They were highly charismatic and powerful leaders, but both were terribly flawed individuals.
BUT,
after FDR, and Hitler, and Stalin, and Churchill, and Reagan, and Archduke Ferdinand, and Lennon (who gets a bad rap here but had a huge impact on the people of his time), and Lenin, and even World War II as a whole are all relegated to historical footnotes in the very distant future, Albert Einstein’s name will still be said with reverence in the hallowed halls of academia and as a sarcastic insult to someone who did something stupid until likely the end of mankind.
And THAT is all that needs to be said. Except, good day, sirs.
Oh god. Who isn’t a flawed individual? …and in terms of Eintein’s regognition; the same comparisons will be drawn to Hitler by anyone percieved as a totallitarian nemesis. “Till the end of time” Nice try on the whole “cased closed” caption. Please. It pushed stomach acid to the back of my throat. It stinks of arrogance. “Good day to you sirs” Jesus Christ…. :roll:
-
:lol: Guess I hit a nerve.
@Imperious:
Hitler’s Germany was NOT the greatest threat to the human race that has ever existed. Barring an ice age, a supervolcanic event, or a large asteroid impact, post WWII Soviet Union could be considered a greater threat simply by virtue of far greater manpower and nuclear weapons.
your right. Krakatoa was the greatest followed by Tunguska
This is an unfair comparison. We both know that in the past there have been much larger events of those types that are capable of reducing the human population from billions to a matter of thousands or zero. Just because we survived Krakatoa and Tunguska doesn’t mean that we are guaranteed to survive the next major event.
Oh god. Who isn’t a flawed individual?
Everyone is flawed. But we aren’t talking about everyone. We are discussing the greatness of a select few men. And it’s easy to ignore their flaws especially when those men’s flaws get in the way of their greatness. When you want to discuss the greatness of people, then you have to take the whole package not just the bits that support your claim and toss the rest.
Bill Hicks said it best. Hitler was an underachiever. And thank somebody’s God for that because if he wasn’t he could have done far more damage than he did. Hitler was a statesman who fancied himself a great general when he wasn’t. He famously ignored his commander’s advice, let personal feelings affect his decisions, and sometimes soured himself on his military leaders or tactics after only minor setbacks. His obsession with rooting out and exterminating the Jews and other perceived undesireables not only in Germany but also in conquered countries was, aside from being deplorable, a tremendous waste of time, manpower, and resources; had zero military value; and in the long run needlessly slowed Germany down thereby hastening the end of the war.
Sticking his nose into things that were beyond his capabilities and not relegating duties to better qualified people? Personal vendettas that interfered with good judgement and good advice? Obsession to the point of being irrational?
Churchill, on the other hand, was an imperialist who hypocritically railed against Hitler’s imperialism while simultanously was a sycophant for another imperialist (Stalin) at the expense of the country who’s pledge for defense was the entire reason for the war to begin with. For him, liberty was important when it came to western Europe, but not so much when it came to Eastern Europe, Africa and India.
These are simply not the marks of great men. I have no doubt that Einstein had shortcomings, but compared to those guys they can’t be very large.
…and in terms of Eintein’s regognition; the same comparisons will be drawn to Hitler by anyone percieved as a totallitarian nemesis.
That’s a typically Eurocentric view. Do you think that the Chinese feel that Hitler was their greatest totalitarian nemesis? How about Africans? Afghanis? The Finns? Philippinos? Cambodians? There are even some in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe who feel that Stalin was more of a totalitarian menace than Hitler.
The problem with humanity is that we can all benefit immensely from looking at the world from other people’s perspectives, like when discussing great men, or when it comes to conflicts, but it’s a rare thing for it to actually happen. And even an arrogant person like myself or someone like you, for example, makes that mistake on occasion.
“Till the end of time”
I didn’t say that. I said until the end of “mankind”. For all we know tomorrow could be our last day. I doubt time would stop for that milestone, however. But, either way, it’s a true statement. Einstein will be with us for good. He’s the gift that keeps on giving. Even when Hitler will be just a thousand year old maniac.
As for the rest of your post, I am making a conscious effort not to respond to vitriol with vitriol. You have a nice day.
-
This is an unfair comparison. We both know that in the past there have been much larger events of those types that are capable of reducing the human population from billions to a matter of thousands or zero. Just because we survived Krakatoa and Tunguska doesn’t mean that we are guaranteed to survive the next major event.
Your right. The sun is the greatest followed by Planet X which will enter and pass thru the Kuiper belt causing large KBO’s to enter and crash into the Earth.
If we want to go larger…. in a few billion years Andromeda Galaxy will collide with ours and the Earth will get its reward finally. That will be the greatest.
-
Here is a question: Which worthy people should have made this list?
-
As for the rest of your post, I am making a conscious effort not to respond to vitriol with vitriol. You have a nice day.
Lol! Well….kudos to you most sincerely for not letting me get a rise out of you.
-
I chose hitler his only problem was attacking more powers besides that Hitler won the war technically beleive it or not sometimes winning more battles does win the war
theres a quote i say lol because germans did not win the main war however they won the war above that aka showing the commitern making new weapons yep hitler showed us he can win -
I chose hitler his only problem was attacking more powers besides that Hitler won the war technically beleive it or not sometimes winning more battles does win the war
theres a quote i say lol because germans did not win the main war however they won the war above that aka showing the commitern making new weapons yep hitler showed us he can winI have no idea what you just said, but you are wrong. :lol:
Suggested Topics
