The best leaders of your country

[Jon Shannow]

Clement Atlee, is one of the best Prime Ministers Britain's had.
If we're allowed to go far back i'd go with Lord Palmerston, Pitt the Younger and possibly Pitt the Elder

 

[Colour Scientist]

The best we ever had.

Not really, his memoirs (which were carefully constructed by a team of people) were the only real source people had on WWII for a long time which created the image that Churchill was the Mastermind behind the Allied victory and an all-round superhero. It was a pretty genius move really, seventy years later and people still see him as the icon he presented himself as in the memoirs.

I'm not saying he wasn't a good leader but the image he created (or rather they created) with his memoirs has only really been challenged in recent years and even then it's largely limited to history circles. It's an image that people are very reluctant to let go of.

 

[Gentleman Adventurer]

Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson

Yeah, he messed up a few times.(Indian removal and the destroying the Federal Reserve) But he almost beat to death the man that attempted to assassinate him and was an expert duelist and that's fucking awesome.

...his face was the last thing you saw before a brutal beating with a hickory cane...

 

[BlackStar42]

Hmmm...That's quite a tough one, most of them are utter shite. I'd tentatively go with Elizabeth I, what with the whole Renaissance we had going on and all. Plus, there was the beating the Armada, which was nice.

As to the whole Hitler debate, the dude bastard was utterly incompetent but he had the luck of the devil. Best leader I can think of for Germany would probably be Bismarck, THE Magnificent Bastard.

 

[Sixcess]

I suppose I could be cliched and say Churchill, but that sort of disregards the fact that he wanted to continue WWII indefinitely by attacking Russia, and was pretty damn crazy in other respects.

"Operation Unthinkable" was I suppose you'd call it a feasibility study. He wasn't alone in thinking about this and who's to say he was wrong? If Hitler was the worst monster of the 20th century then Stalin was quite possibly the second worst and Churchill knew it - comparing an alliance with Stalin to an alliance with Satan:

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

The Soviet Union was diametrically opposed to the western powers, and was aggressively expansionist. Had Stalin decided to keep going after taking Berlin there would likely have been very little Britain or France could have done to stop them. There's reason to believe that Truman's use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in part a demonstration of power aimed at dissuading the USSR from further agression.

In the end it was decided that the western powers would not win a war with the USSR. Instead we had 40 years of worldwide tension, the soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and proxy wars in the middle east and elsewhere during the Cold War, which itself almost led us to global anihilation. Perhaps Operation Unthinkable was a missed opportunity.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Well as crap as Tony Blair was while he was in government, you gotta give him credit for making shitloads of money as a peace adviser or whatever since then, despite the fact that he started the war. That is kinda genius.

 

[Paladin2905]

And the award for quickest application of Godwin's law today goes to... this topic.

But seriously, impossible to judge leaders until they are long, long dead; and by that point they're either reviled or loved by history anyways. In the US Lincoln is held up as a near god-head, but at the time was hated by so many people. Did things most people here would be uncomfortable with too (suspension of due process). On the flip side part of the US now holds up Ronald Reagan as infallible, but I think history might judge him a bit differently (started the hard slide of the US economy).

I guess you just never know.

 

[DJjaffacake]

Winston Churchill was a fucking criminal. Almost as bad as the leaders of the axis.

How so?

[sub]I have the feeling this thread will soon be moving to the religion and politics sub-forum...[/sub]

His treatment of the Germans after WW2 was rather horrid. He wanted to kill everyone.

Every leader in WW2 was a fucking scumbag, on both sides, and every one of them did their fair share of atrocities, be it executing jews, sending jews to Germany to be executed, torturing prisoners.... Which is why it pisses me off when one of them is portrayed as a hero. People need to fucking wake up and realize neither Churchill nor Hitler were heros.

EDIT: Just an example of what a fucking nutjob Churchill was: after the second world war he said that if one day England found itself in an economic slump simular to the one Germany found themselves in before Hitler took over, he would want a man like Hitler to lead Britain. Lovely.

He was also the driving force behind the European Convention on Human Rights, which exists specifically to prevent the atrocities of WW2 happening ever again.

OT: If I can pick a legendary leader then King Arthur, obviously.
Military would be Wellington since he was also a PM.
Historical and not military, Wilberforce, abolition of slavery.
Monarch, Richard the Lionheart, for being a badass and very religiously tolerant for the time period.
PM, either Blair or Lloyd George, Blair for NI, and Lloyd George for the beginning of the welfare state.
For the lolz, Harold Saxon, dun dun dun dun.

 

[Xanadu84]

Favorite might be FDR. There's a reason he had 4 terms.

Teddy Roosevelt is right up there in terms of just being awesome. I only shy away from him because he is responsible for jocks and the obsession with sports ahead of classes in schools, thanks to importing the idea of Muscular Christianity. But besides that, pure awesome.

Coolidge has the best presidential story ever. Notoriously quiet, a reporter told him that she bet she could get more then 2 words out of him during a dinner. After being quiet all night, Silent Cal turned to the reporter and simply said, "You lose".

 

[Erttheking]

From America. This award easily goes to George Washinton. What did he say in the 18th century when all powerful kings and queens where still considered normal and deomocracy was in its infancy? Political parties should be avoided at all cost because they will tear the country apart..."sigh" why didn't we listen to him?

 

[ssgt splatter]

I'm in the US and right now, our goverment can't even agree on something as simple as what color to paint a room when the republicans want to paint it light brown and the demacrates want to paint it beige.

I remeber back in the day when both parties actually did things but now I just don't want to live on this planet anymore.

 

[Sixcess]

Not really, his memoirs (which were carefully constructed by a team of people) were the only real source people had on WWII for a long time which created the image that Churchill was the Mastermind behind the Allied victory and an all-round superhero. It was a pretty genius move really, seventy years later and people still see him as the icon he presented himself as in the memoirs.

History is written by the winners - a quote that's been attributed to Churchill but is much older and really has been attributed to a lot of leaders. Regardless, it's true.

I'm not saying he wasn't a good leader but the image he created (or rather they created) with his memoirs has only really been challenged in recent years and even then it's largely limited to history circles. It's an image that people are very reluctant to let go of.

The problem is that 'history' as interpreted by historians, is not a constant. We can say with reasonable certainty that such and such an event happened on such and such a date, but the more interesting question of why it happened is always open to interpretation.

The further we get from a period of history the more we may learn from it as new documents are discovered or made public, but on the flipside the testimony of those who were actually there becomes harder to obtain as memory fades and people die. There are still papers relating to WWII that are withheld under the Official Secrets Act, so even now there's no way to know the 'truth' and all historians can do is interpret what they have. The rest is theorising, and often consciously or unconsciously informed by personal bias or the changing perceptions of the day.

Do people like the popular image of Churchill and are thus reluctant to see it 'debunked'? Of course, but that's hardly unique to him, and I've yet to see anything that overshadows what he did achieve. He was by no means flawless, but who is?

To give a different example - Lincoln is on record as having said he would not abolish slavery if that was the price he would have to pay to save the Union. Does that in any way diminish the leadership he displayed during the Civil War, and what winning that war achieved? I don't think it does.

 

[Colour Scientist]

History is written by the winners - a quote that's been attributed to Churchill but is much older and really has been attributed to a lot of leaders. Regardless, it's true.

That's not really true anymore either, maybe when history was more heavily influenced by Ranke it was but since the 1960s and the growth of social history it doesn't really stand up.

The problem is that 'history' as interpreted by historians, is not a constant. We can say with reasonable certainty that such and such an event happened on such and such a date, but the more interesting question of why it happened is always open to interpretation.

The further we get from a period of history the more we may learn from it as new documents are discovered or made public, but on the flipside the testimony of those who were actually there becomes harder to obtain as memory fades and people die. There are still papers relating to WWII that are withheld under the Official Secrets Act, so even now there's no way to know the 'truth' and all historians can do is interpret what they have. The rest is theorising, and often consciously or unconsciously informed by personal bias or the changing perceptions of the day.

Do people like the popular image of Churchill and are thus reluctant to see it 'debunked'? Of course, but that's hardly unique to him, and I've yet to see anything that overshadows what he did achieve. He was by no means flawless, but who is?

To give a different example - Lincoln is on record as having said he would not abolish slavery if that was the price he would have to pay to save the Union. Does that in any way diminish the leadership he displayed during the Civil War, and what winning that war achieved? I don't think it does.

I don't really see the point you're trying to make in relation to what I said, especially the first two paragraphs. They just seem unnecessary. Are you agreeing with me in an obtuse way or are you just skirting around what I said by quoting general, history sound bites at me?


As for the last two, he wasn't perfect but nobody is and that's okay? The Lincoln comparison doesn't really work, that's something he said versus what he actually did, I'm talking about a fabricated persona. Churchill the superhero, who almost single-handedly saved Europe from Hitler, selectively choosing the documents you use because you know no one else would have access for years and defining the way people view WWII for quite some time. Setting yourself up to be remembered as the best PM of all time , the same way Chamberlain was set up to look like one of the most foolish.

Saying that other people do it too isn't really relevant, I'm not talking about other people.

 

[krazykidd]

I'm canadian . And know nothing about politics nor past or present leaders . Also quite a debate going on here . How does that meme about mentioning nazi germany in a thread go again?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I have always found George Washington to be a boss. Most of the other badass presidents were nutjobs in some way, but he was just awesome.

 

[Sixcess]

History is written by the winners - a quote that's been attributed to Churchill but is much older and really has been attributed to a lot of leaders. Regardless, it's true.

That's not really true anymore either, maybe when history was more heavily influenced by Ranke it was but since the 1960s and the growth of social history it doesn't really stand up.

All that has changed, particularly in the last decade or two, is that there are more voices in the conversation, providing differing viewpoints. Differing opinions.

I don't really see the point you're trying to make in relation to what I said, especially the first two paragraphs. They just seem unnecessary.

My point, and the point I was trying to get across, was that history is open to interpretation, and over time and for any number of reasons, those interpretations can and will change.

Are you agreeing with me in an obtuse way or are you just skirting around what I said by quoting general, history sound bites at me?

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I'm writing forum posts here, not an academic thesis, but I dislike the implication that I'm merely spouting 'general history soundbites' rather than offering my own views on the topic under discussion.

As for the last two, he wasn't perfect but nobody is and that's okay? The Lincoln comparison doesn't really work, that's something he said versus what he actually did, I'm talking about a fabricated persona. Churchill the superhero, who almost single-handedly saved Europe from Hitler, selectively choosing the documents you use because you know no one else would have access for years and defining the way people view WWII for quite some time.

This would be relevant had I at any time tried to paint Churchill as such. Since I've went out of my way to admit his faults I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Setting yourself up to be remembered as the best PM of all time , the same way Chamberlain was set up to look like one of the most foolish.

Churchill's eulogy for Chamberlain, delivered in the House of Commons, was extraordinarily generous. Perhaps he was merely being polite - to speak no ill of the dead - but he could have said a lot less than he did had that been his intention. If he wished to make himself look good in the eyes of history, he certainly did not set out to make his predecessor look bad.

See here for the text of that speech, though I suspect you're familiar with it

Chamberlain was not 'set up' to look foolish. "Peace in our time" did that all on its own.

Saying that other people do it too isn't really relevant, I'm not talking about other people.

Which rather limits the scope of the discussion. Overly so, I'd say.

 

[Section Crow]

I wish i was Chinese so i could choose Zhuge Liang...

at any rate, the most prominent in my mind is Winston Churchill and Oliver Cromwell but those names have been churned into my brain since birth so i remain neutral.

 

[Nietz]

The most badass politician in my dear country of Sweden must have been Olof Palme.

A social democrat who had the balls enough to stand up against the U.S during the vietnam-war, who unfortunently was murdered in 1986. Good night sweet prince.

 

[DanielBrown]

The current King of Sweden, Carl XIV Gustaf, is awesome. He's got a wibe of being a living cartoon character somehow.

As for doing great things... I guess Gustav Vasa was among the greater. Knew a lot about our kings when I was young, but most has gotten lost over the years.

 

[Ironside]

The best leaders of my country I suppose are either The Iron Duke or the Iron Lady. The Iron Lady, because she did a lot to fix the terrible mis-management of the previous Labour government and she did waht she thought was right for the country rather than what was best for her party. And the Iron Duke, because the Iron Duke is an awesome name.

I suppose I could be cliched and say Churchill, but that sort of disregards the fact that he wanted to continue WWII indefinitely by attacking Russia, and was pretty damn crazy in other respects.

Therefore, I'm going to go with King Arthur, as no politician could possibly match him.

WHy would it have been a bad thing to go after the Russians at the end of ww2? Their regime under Stalin in particular was worse than Hitler's regime and then they basically occupied all of eastern europe for the next 50 years - we would have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if we had tried to take Russia down then. It probably wouldn't be Britain doing much of the attacking though what with our country being in ruins and all, but the US could have made a good go of it.