Greatest Leaders of the 20th Century? Watch

Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
There are obvious ones, like Hitler (until WWII and the Holocaust), Stalin (who, despite being a monstrous, murderous tyrant, did industrialise Russia and make it into a world superpower and claim half of Europe for communism) and Churchill (who led Britain to victory in WWII). But there are some underappreciated ones.

For one, I think that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk deserves to be on any list of greatest leaders of the 20th century. He saved Turkey from catastrophe at the end of WWII, fighting off several countries to preserve his homeland as one entity. He prevented Turkey from being parcelled out among the Great Powers like a piece of meat, and ensured that it did not endure the fate of other Middle Eastern countries in this regard. But he didn't stop there. He determined to modernise his country and drag it kicking and screaming into the new era. He Westernised Turkey, imposed secularism, shot the ignorant clerics and developed the country economically and culturally.


Then there are the two last Shahs of Iran, Reza Shah Pahlavi and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. They both modernised Iran, as Ataturk modernised Turkey, and transformed it into a middle power. If Iran hadn't had that awful revolution, it would be one of the most powerful and respected countries in the world today, instead of a despised Islamist pariah.


Then there is Getulio Vargas of Brazil. He saved the country from the wasteful and incompetent regional elitist politicians and saw Brazil out of the Great Depression, and saw through its industrialisation. He showed astute leadership in WWII, allying with the Allies instead of the Axis, suppressed communists and Integralists and made Brazil into a nation to be respected.


I would also mention Franco of Spain and Salazar of Portugal. Franco made Spain's economy into the 9th largest in the world, and saved the country from communism during the Spanish Civil War. He preserved its national heritage and secured the future of the country from being squandered under Stalinist rule. Salazar showed heroic leadership in rescuing Portugal from decay and clinging on to Angola in the face of astonishing odds (international isolation, support from communists worldwide for the Marxist rebels).
2
reply
Peter Lynch
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Name:  Gordon Brown.jpg
Views: 199
Size:  91.9 KB
0
reply
Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by Peter Lynch)
Name:  Gordon Brown.jpg
Views: 199
Size:  91.9 KB
No...

And he was PM during the 21st century, which automatically disqualifies him.
0
reply
username2808800
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Cato the Elder)
There are obvious ones, like Hitler (until WWII and the Holocaust), Stalin (who, despite being a monstrous, murderous tyrant, did industrialise Russia and make it into a world superpower and claim half of Europe for communism) and Churchill (who led Britain to victory in WWII). But there are some underappreciated ones.

For one, I think that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk deserves to be on any list of greatest leaders of the 20th century. He saved Turkey from catastrophe at the end of WWII, fighting off several countries to preserve his homeland as one entity. He prevented Turkey from being parcelled out among the Great Powers like a piece of meat, and ensured that it did not endure the fate of other Middle Eastern countries in this regard. But he didn't stop there. He determined to modernise his country and drag it kicking and screaming into the new era. He Westernised Turkey, imposed secularism, shot the ignorant clerics and developed the country economically and culturally.


Then there are the two last Shahs of Iran, Reza Shah Pahlavi and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. They both modernised Iran, as Ataturk modernised Turkey, and transformed it into a middle power. If Iran hadn't had that awful revolution, it would be one of the most powerful and respected countries in the world today, instead of a despised Islamist pariah.


Then there is Getulio Vargas of Brazil. He saved the country from the wasteful and incompetent regional elitist politicians and saw Brazil out of the Great Depression, and saw through its industrialisation. He showed astute leadership in WWII, allying with the Allies instead of the Axis, suppressed communists and Integralists and made Brazil into a nation to be respected.


I would also mention Franco of Spain and Salazar of Portugal. Franco made Spain's economy into the 9th largest in the world, and saved the country from communism during the Spanish Civil War. He preserved its national heritage and secured the future of the country from being squandered under Stalinist rule. Salazar showed heroic leadership in rescuing Portugal from decay and clinging on to Angola in the face of astonishing odds (international isolation, support from communists worldwide for the Marxist rebels).
Thatcher and Regan
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Winston Church, Franklin D Roosevelt, Dwight D Eisenhower, Margret Thatcher & Ronald Reagan all spring to mind from an Anglo-sphere POV.
1
reply
Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by Tempest II)
Winston Church, Franklin D Roosevelt, Dwight D Eisenhower, Margret Thatcher & Ronald Reagan all spring to mind from an Anglo-sphere POV.
Yes, but they're the obvious ones.
0
reply
Peter Lynch
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
Gandhi
0
reply
Peter Lynch
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
Idi Amin Dada

Before he decided to go crazy and keep heads in the fridge.
0
reply
Cherub012
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
Martin Luther King.

Mahatma Gandhi.
0
reply
Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by Peter Lynch)
Gandhi
Gandhi was an idiot, an ignorant, backward-looking, superstitious, half-naked fakir and half-starved, septuagenarian pervert.
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Cato the Elder)
There are obvious ones, like Hitler (until WWII and the Holocaust), Stalin (who, despite being a monstrous, murderous tyrant, did industrialise Russia and make it into a world superpower and claim half of Europe for communism) and Churchill (who led Britain to victory in WWII). But there are some underappreciated ones.

For one, I think that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk deserves to be on any list of greatest leaders of the 20th century. He saved Turkey from catastrophe at the end of WWII, fighting off several countries to preserve his homeland as one entity. He prevented Turkey from being parcelled out among the Great Powers like a piece of meat, and ensured that it did not endure the fate of other Middle Eastern countries in this regard. But he didn't stop there. He determined to modernise his country and drag it kicking and screaming into the new era. He Westernised Turkey, imposed secularism, shot the ignorant clerics and developed the country economically and culturally.


Then there are the two last Shahs of Iran, Reza Shah Pahlavi and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. They both modernised Iran, as Ataturk modernised Turkey, and transformed it into a middle power. If Iran hadn't had that awful revolution, it would be one of the most powerful and respected countries in the world today, instead of a despised Islamist pariah.


Then there is Getulio Vargas of Brazil. He saved the country from the wasteful and incompetent regional elitist politicians and saw Brazil out of the Great Depression, and saw through its industrialisation. He showed astute leadership in WWII, allying with the Allies instead of the Axis, suppressed communists and Integralists and made Brazil into a nation to be respected.


I would also mention Franco of Spain and Salazar of Portugal. Franco made Spain's economy into the 9th largest in the world, and saved the country from communism during the Spanish Civil War. He preserved its national heritage and secured the future of the country from being squandered under Stalinist rule. Salazar showed heroic leadership in rescuing Portugal from decay and clinging on to Angola in the face of astonishing odds (international isolation, support from communists worldwide for the Marxist rebels).
Your list is more like a roll call of some of the worst leaders of the 20th century. Ataturk presided over the genocide of the Armenians and revelled in it, later extolling it to Stalin and Hitler as a method of dealing with troublesome peoples. Franco and Salazar chronically held their countries back in a sort of limbo state of underdevelopment and reactionary-led poverty whilst the families of the dictators partied and hid their cash in Monaco and other tax havens, The Shah tortured and killed thousands of dissidents and was a tool of US imperialism and control of Iranian oil. The regime that followed the Pahlevis may have been horrible, but it is genuinely hard for an objective observer to choose between the two for the title of 'worst'.

Do you go out of your way to be contentious, are you trying to propagandise young minds as part of some bizarre Spectator-style Tory agitprop campaign, or are you just completely deluded?
0
reply
Peter Lynch
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by Cato the Elder)
Gandhi was an idiot, an ignorant, backward-looking, superstitious, half-naked fakir and half-starved, septuagenarian pervert.
He derived inspiration from the greatest 700 verse discourse of modern time.....

The Bhagavad Gita


If you have read that book, you will realise why Gandhi did what he did.
0
reply
Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Your list is more like a roll call of some of the worst leaders of the 20th century. Ataturk presided over the genocide of the Armenians and revelled in it, later extolling it to Stalin and Hitler as a method of dealing with troublesome peoples. Franco and Salazar chronically held their countries back in a sort of limbo state of underdevelopment and reactionary-led poverty whilst the families of the dictators partied and hid their cash in Monaco and other tax havens, The Shah tortured and killed thousands of dissidents and was a tool of US imperialism and control of Iranian oil. The regime that followed the Pahlevis may have been horrible, but it is genuinely hard for an objective observer to choose between the two for the title of 'worst'.

Do you go out of your way to be contentious, are you trying to propagandise young minds as part of some bizarre Spectator-style Tory agitprop campaign, or are you just completely deluded?
Ataturk was not a perfect man, and did many questionable things, like all heroic leaders have done. Churchill wasn't a saint either. But do you deny that Ataturk transformed Turkey for the better? You'd have to be blind not to see the good he did for that country, even to the extent that in Turkey today it is illegal for anyone to bear his name, so revered is he by his countrymen. How can such a god-like man deserve to be slandered in such an ignorant manner?

Franco and Salazar weren't perfect either, but they saved their countries from communism and preserved their respective national heritages, and that makes them worthy of admiration.

The Shah killed and tortured communists and trouble-makers who deserved it. Iran was on its way to becoming one of the world's largest economies, then the Revolution hit. Secularism was enforced and women weren't treated like chattel. (Perhaps they were given too MUCH freedom. That's why they felt brave enough to go out and revolt). Education was provided free of charge to the middle classes, who repaid him by kicking him out of power and bringing in the Islamic Republic. And U.S. imperialism is a good thing. The Shah looked out for America's interests in the Middle East by preserving stability and keeping communism at bay, as well as shoring up his own power and influence and the prestige of the Pahlavi dynasty. He wasn't an unthinking lackey, but his relationship with the US was based on mutual self-interest. In fact at one point in the 1960s when Kennedy began pressuring him on human rights, the Shah threatened to do business with the Soviets and that shut them up. When Kennedy died the Shah was overjoyed that finally he wouldn't be nagged about the necessary measures he was taken to save his country from communist domination. Remember that the Soviets had actually occupied part of northern Iran in the 1940s and it took a lot of effort to get them to leave and allow the communist puppet state they had set up to collapse.

And are you accusing me of being a propagandist? Propaganda is a good thing
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by Cato the Elder)
Ataturk was not a perfect man, and did many questionable things, like all heroic leaders have done. Churchill wasn't a saint either. But do you deny that Ataturk transformed Turkey for the better? You'd have to be blind not to see the good he did for that country, even to the extent that in Turkey today it is illegal for anyone to bear his name, so revered is he by his countrymen. How can such a god-like man deserve to be slandered in such an ignorant manner?

Franco and Salazar weren't perfect either, but they saved their countries from communism and preserved their respective national heritages, and that makes them worthy of admiration.

The Shah killed and tortured communists and trouble-makers who deserved it. Iran was on its way to becoming one of the world's largest economies, then the Revolution hit. Secularism was enforced and women weren't treated like chattel. (Perhaps they were given too MUCH freedom. That's why they felt brave enough to go out and revolt). Education was provided free of charge to the middle classes, who repaid him by kicking him out of power and bringing in the Islamic Republic. And U.S. imperialism is a good thing. The Shah looked out for America's interests in the Middle East by preserving stability and keeping communism at bay, as well as shoring up his own power and influence and the prestige of the Pahlavi dynasty. He wasn't an unthinking lackey, but his relationship with the US was based on mutual self-interest. In fact at one point in the 1960s when Kennedy began pressuring him on human rights, the Shah threatened to do business with the Soviets and that shut them up. When Kennedy died the Shah was overjoyed that finally he wouldn't be nagged about the necessary measures he was taken to save his country from communist domination. Remember that the Soviets had actually occupied part of northern Iran in the 1940s and it took a lot of effort to get them to leave and allow the communist puppet state they had set up to collapse.

And are you accusing me of being a propagandist? Propaganda is a good thing
Seeing you start threads that simply consist of a video of fascist marching songs, I am not taking you or your arguments seriously, especially when they combine an attempt to colonise and channel your misunderstandings of Churchill with bizarre alt-right reinterpretations of 20th century history. You come across as yet another web-fascist with a desire to run a local edition of Breitbart. Good luck with the crap.
0
reply
Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Seeing you start threads that simply consist of a video of fascist marching songs, I am not taking you or your arguments seriously, especially when they combine an attempt to colonise and channel Churchill with bizarre alt-right reinterpretations of 20th century history. You come across as yet another web-fascist with a desire to run a local edition of Breitbart. Good luck with the crap.
I'm not a fascist or on the alt-right, but ok. You sound triggered and incapable of argument.

Would you feel better if I posted commmunist marching songs? I like those too.

0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by Cato the Elder)
Yes, but they're the obvious ones.
Perhaps, but that doesn't make them any less great. From a military POV:

Erich von Manstein - He was the main reason why France fell so rapidly in 1940. His idea to cut off Allied forces in Belgium with his thrust through the Ardennes Forest meant that France fell within 2 months. Von Manstein also fought well on the Eastern front despite overwhelming Soviet numbers & firepower. The fact he was a Nazi obviously makes him the enemy even if he wasn't exactly Hitler's biggest fan.

Georgy Zhukov - The Soviet commander who saved Moscow & Stalingrad before then leading the Red Army's charge at Berlin. Stalin, like Hitler, was a relatively incompetent military tactician & strategist. Zhukov was one of the few Stalin would actaully listen to; he turned around the USSR's defeats & then knocked Germany out of the Second World War. He offensives did cause a lot of Soviet causalities & his forces did commit atrocities against German civilians but this was standard USSR practice at the time.

Then you've got the Western Allied commanders like Patton, Monty, Harris, Arnold, Marshall etc.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
The regime that followed the Pahlevis may have been horrible, but it is genuinely hard for an objective observer to choose between the two for the title of 'worst'.
No, it really isn't.

To quote one Iranian's comment I have seen elsewhere:

My parents protested against the Shah during the revolution.

Every day I pay the price for their mistake.
0
reply
rustyldner
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
Konrad Adenauer
Lee Kuan Yew
and of course...

Maggie Thatcher
0
reply
2384911
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
Hitler
0
reply
ageshallnot
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)

Do you go out of your way to be contentious, are you trying to propagandise young minds as part of some bizarre Spectator-style Tory agitprop campaign, or are you just completely deluded?
The OP's views on history are simplistic and sometimes contradictory. He is going to have an interesting time come October.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (129)
17.97%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (73)
10.17%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (123)
17.13%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (104)
14.48%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (70)
9.75%
How can I be the best version of myself? (219)
30.5%

Watched Threads

View All