The best leaders of your country

[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.

 

[BristolBerserker]

Going to have to go with Churchill or Maggie. I know he expelled the jews from England but Edward I was a great king and leader. If you're English anyway.

 

[C2Ultima]

It seems a bit sad that everyone seems to say this, but George Washington is the best president in my opinion. Why? No fucking political parties. He knew that they never led to anything good. Hell, in his farwell address he specifically made the request that the U.S.A not have any seperate political parties.

He also suggested that we not have a standing army, or get involved in foriegn conflicts.

Whoops.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Wars are not fought by saints - it's a nasty, brutal business and if we did bad things we did so because the alternative was much much worse.

Which is exactly the point I am making.

No, the point you were making was that there was no difference between Churchill and Hitler - or to put it a different way, that there's no difference between killing enemy soldiers in combat and killing civilians in concentration camps.

He never said that...

OT: Every leader there's been in my lifetime has been useless. Was too young to remember much about John Major, but Tony Blair was a slimy prick and along with Gordon Brown and the rest of the Labour party fucked the economy up its arse and now David Cameron's worsening it.
I don't like Churchill, but I can see that as far as actual leading during a war went, he was pretty good. But I dislike the sound of the rest of his policies.

As for my other side, Chirac never seemed that outstanding. Maybe he was competent, not sure, but he never seemed to stand out. Sarkozy is a racist, right wing prick but at least he understands that France needs to reform if it's ever gonna survive the way it is. Honestly, I think that if Hollande gets in on Saturday and goes ahead with his current plans, France is fucked.
de Gaulle is generally considered to be the great leader of France.

 

[Nietz]

Hells yeah! Why didn't I think of that mad pimp? He's the greatest.

[edit]
Had to edit in more awesome.

Spoiler: A serious king

 

[Colour Scientist]

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

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

Yes, and the point I was making was that for a long time Churchill's own version of events was the accepted one and now there are a multitude of historians that dispute it because there are infinitely more sources available. Indicating that he wasn't the master strategist he was made out to be, there're opinions, viewpoints but the point I was making is that he wasn't the best of the best. I don't know why you're arguing that point because you're basically agreeing with me.

I didn't mean that Churchill painted him in a bad light, I meant that he was portrayed in the early aftermath of the war as a fool (similar to the way Churchill was portrayed as a genius) and this was and still is, as with the glorification of Churchill, largely accepted. Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler wasn't due to blindness on his part, at the time Britain and France wouldn't have been able to fight Germany, it wouldn't have been economically and militarily viable, he was extremely limited in what he could actually do. It wasn't a popular choice but if anything it delayed the inevitable enough for them to have some time to prepare.

 

[BlackStar42]

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.

Because it would have cost millions of lives and would have failed miserably. One of the laws of war is: you DO NOT invade Russia. Only one man's ever conquered it, and Russia wasn't even a unified state at the time.