@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
-
imperious i actually thought you gave me -1 karma.
Anyways hitler won the best military award but
Church Hill probably won the determined award -
no i did not.
-
i didnt know until today also i have givn u +1 karma also we are getting off topic :-P
-
I voted Stalin. He not only fought Hitler he expanded his empire in the process. You can pretend the Warsaw Pact was an alliance for Soviet friendly countries if you like. The reality is they were an actual part of the Soviet Empire. Look how long it stayed that way.
Stalin exported his brand of politics globally to an extent no other individual has in history. There are still communist nations on this planet that Iosef helped make commie. The massive effect on the world psyche and economics the Cold War had. The Korean War, and communist insurgencies that lost but still drained western powers of men and material. Stalin’s policies even effected the movies made in Hollywood. I think his world impact is under rated by most people.
Being an independent I’m able to think about politics. Being dense I’m not able to think about economics. I let Alan Greenspan do that for me. In an interview Mr. Greenspan said Clinton did very little positive for the American economy. According to Greenspan Clinton “rode on the coat tails of the previous two administrations economic policies”.
Those policies were started by Reagan. Ask any economist and they will tell you it takes a good decade for a policy to fully effect the multi-trillion dollar engine that is the American economy. Reagan bashers should not take my word for it. Read up a little about how our economy really works then re-access your politics. Thank Reagan for the '90’s, thank Clinton for now, thank Bush for what’s soon to come, and thank the next guy for the 2020’s.
-
Being an independent I’m able to think about politics. Being dense I’m not able to think about economics. I let Alan Greenspan do that for me. In an interview Mr. Greenspan said Clinton did very little positive for the American economy. According to Greenspan Clinton “rode on the coat tails of the previous two administrations economic policies”.
Those policies were started by Reagan. Ask any economist and they will tell you it takes a good decade for a policy to fully effect the multi-trillion dollar engine that is the American economy. Reagan bashers should not take my word for it. Read up a little about how our economy really works then re-access your politics. Thank Reagan for the '90’s, thank Clinton for now, thank Bush for what’s soon to come, and thank the next guy for the 2020’s.
Let’s look at a quote from Greenspan (Ben Bernanke has replaced him, by the way) concerning Clinton and Reagan (from the Washington Post):
During Clinton’s first weeks as president, Greenspan went to the Oval Office and explained the danger of not confronting the federal deficit. Unless the deficits were cut, there could be “a financial crisis,” Greenspan told the president. “The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world.”
Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to “save Social Security first.” Greenspan writes, “I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with.”
Does this sound like the same Greenspan that you allege is critical of Clinton?
The reality is that Reagan’s economic policies created real problems. Policies do not take a decade to enact and take effect. Reagan created the largest deficit since WW2, shifted the tax burden to the middle class, perpetuated the S&L crisis, changed the US from an export and creditor nation to an import and debtor nation, etc.
I’m not saying he didn’t do anything good…I’m sure there is. But to say he gets credit for what Clinton and the Republican Congress did during Clintons terms is ridiculous.
In that case you could say the benefit during Reagan’s terms came from Ford and Carter (which some argue anyway concerning deregulation).
-
I voted Stalin. He not only fought Hitler he expanded his empire in the process. You can pretend the Warsaw Pact was an alliance for Soviet friendly countries if you like. The reality is they were an actual part of the Soviet Empire. Look how long it stayed that way.
Stalin exported his brand of politics globally to an extent no other individual has in history. There are still communist nations on this planet that Iosef helped make commie. The massive effect on the world psyche and economics the Cold War had. The Korean War, and communist insurgencies that lost but still drained western powers of men and material. Stalin’s policies even effected the movies made in Hollywood. I think his world impact is under rated by most people.
Being an independent I’m able to think about politics. Being dense I’m not able to think about economics. I let Alan Greenspan do that for me. In an interview Mr. Greenspan said Clinton did very little positive for the American economy. According to Greenspan Clinton “rode on the coat tails of the previous two administrations economic policies”.
Those policies were started by Reagan. Ask any economist and they will tell you it takes a good decade for a policy to fully effect the multi-trillion dollar engine that is the American economy. Reagan bashers should not take my word for it. Read up a little about how our economy really works then re-access your politics. Thank Reagan for the '90’s, thank Clinton for now, thank Bush for what’s soon to come, and thank the next guy for the 2020’s.
It’s about time Stalin gets some love in this poll.
-
@ABWorsham:
Stalin gets some love in this poll.
Yes Stalin did well and the only thing the russians thought of when the germans attacked and after usa came was kill nazis before the western allies.
-
It was Stalin’s country that beat Germany in WWII. The Russians were willing to paid the price in blood; an awful lot of blood.
-
The Germans beat themselves by the fact that they were the active aggressors in every effort and its hard not to make mistakes by always going after everybody. If Hitler just stopped after June 1940 and went to full war time economy, perhaps the ‘Sitzkrieg’ may have allowed them to maintain things.
If Zhukov came after Germany they would have the entire army cut off as proven by wargames conducted by the Soviet military. It would have been Finland all over again
-
Churchill is catching up to hitler and if i could have 2 votes it would go hitler then stalin. Stalin without his leadership i beleive that the russians would have had a harder time slowing germany and then becoming the agressers if that ever even happened. “but thats why you chose the leaders because they are great” The only thing is who is the greatest “like are polls they are all great but who is the greatest”
-
FDR is catching up :-o but Hitler hangs on to his lead. I guess Acorn has not registered any old new dealers yet. :wink:
-
FDR is catching up :-o but Hitler hangs on to his lead. I guess Acorn has not registered any old new dealers yet. :wink:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Dude, good one!
-
FDR is catching up :-o but Hitler hangs on to his lead. I guess Acorn has not registered any old new dealers yet. :wink:
LOL that is good i laugh my ass of (lmao)
Man people will vote for him only for a hoax
-
I’m about as blown away this thread is still going, let alone Hitler is winning! Lol! ….but um, yeah. It’s all a hoax. Every vote. This is WAY amusing.
-
lol i cant beleive its still on lol you just lol havnt seen it forever let me giggle*
Suggested Topics
