Who was the GREATEST

[Obergruppenfuhrer]

I’m fessing up here. I voted for Hitler. “Man of the year.” I’m not quite sure what that means exactly so I took it as the most influential. I believe the atomic technology would have been discovered without Einstein, but perhaps not in the same time frame. There’s no way to know when it would have been available as a weapon without Einstein. His theory of relativity definately puts him in a close tie for me however.

I voted for Hitler because he demonstrated to modern civilization that an empire similar to the Romans, could still rise and pose a threat to the world, collectively. I think Hitler changed the manner in which the world now looks at those that rise to totalitarian power and the actions taken as a result. I believe he showed us that fanatisism with fervent followers can be precise, completely calculated, organized and extremely powerful.

I dont thing the American public has learned its lesson however. They don’t have perspective that history continues to repeat itself. Many people have completely forgotten the impact of 9/11 on our national security. I think the government has taken it as serious possible while the public (and even large divides of the government) has now come to almost a majority gripe against Americas efforts to thwart future attempts.

If anyone thinks that thinks there hasnt been a need for force to secure the safety of our country after 9/11 are still living in a safe little bubble where the twin towers collapsing are nothing more than TV violence they have long been desensitised to.

[Jermofoot]

@ABWorsham:

Ferdinand out of place? Some people change the world by simply getting killed. If his assination had not happened would Europe plunge into World War One?

Ferdinand’s death caused the greatest war known to civilization; followed by an even greater destructive conflict. If we look at the aftermath of the World Wars, how can Archduke Ferdinand, by his assination not get placed on such a list.

I do agree with your suggestions concerning Lennin and Gandhi. Those additions would make for great discussion.

There was a bigger part of the conflict than him alone.  And I don’t think getting assassinated is a “great” action, mostly because you don’t do anything but have someone kill you.  Lincoln and JFK should be up there then, and they have their own merits to go on.

And his death really had nothing to do with WW2…

@Obergruppenfuhrer:

I’m fessing up here. I voted for Hitler. “Man of the year.” I’m not quite sure what that means exactly so I took it as the most influential. I believe the atomic technology would have been discovered without Einstein, but perhaps not in the same time frame. There’s no way to know when it would have been available as a weapon without Einstein. His theory of relativity definately puts him in a close tie for me however.

I voted for Hitler because he demonstrated to modern civilization that an empire similar to the Romans, could still rise and pose a threat to the world, collectively. I think Hitler changed the manner in which the world now looks at those that rise to totalitarian power and the actions taken as a result. I believe he showed us that fanatisism with fervent followers can be precise, completely calculated, organized and extremely powerful.

I dont thing the American public has learned its lesson however. They don’t have perspective that history continues to repeat itself. Many people have completely forgotten the impact of 9/11 on our national security. I think the government has taken it as serious possible while the public (and even large divides of the government) has now come to almost a majority gripe against Americas efforts to thwart future attempts.

If anyone thinks that thinks there hasnt been a need for force to secure the safety of our country after 9/11 are still living in a safe little bubble where the twin towers collapsing are nothing more than TV violence they have long been desensitised to.

Yes, I think people have been out of touch with reality, but still are.  But to chastise Hitler for what he did then excuse the US for doing much of the same is quite a stretch.  Remember, Hitler invaded Poland on the excuse of threat to security.  There is no excuse for the most powerful nation in the world strong arming other countries and offering no diplomacy whatsoever.  So I should stop there lest this gets too political.

[Obergruppenfuhrer]

I can definately respect the above point of view.

[ABWorsham4]

@Jermofoot:

@ABWorsham:

Ferdinand out of place? Some people change the world by simply getting killed. If his assination had not happened would Europe plunge into World War One?

Ferdinand’s death caused the greatest war known to civilization; followed by an even greater destructive conflict. If we look at the aftermath of the World Wars, how can Archduke Ferdinand, by his assination not get placed on such a list.

I do agree with your suggestions concerning Lennin and Gandhi. Those additions would make for great discussion.

There was a bigger part of the conflict than him alone.  And I don’t think getting assassinated is a “great” action, mostly because you don’t do anything but have someone kill you.  Lincoln and JFK should be up there then, and they have their own merits to go on.

And his death really had nothing to do with WW2…

@Obergruppenfuhrer:

I’m fessing up here. I voted for Hitler. “Man of the year.” I’m not quite sure what that means exactly so I took it as the most influential. I believe the atomic technology would have been discovered without Einstein, but perhaps not in the same time frame. There’s no way to know when it would have been available as a weapon without Einstein. His theory of relativity definately puts him in a close tie for me however.

I voted for Hitler because he demonstrated to modern civilization that an empire similar to the Romans, could still rise and pose a threat to the world, collectively. I think Hitler changed the manner in which the world now looks at those that rise to totalitarian power and the actions taken as a result. I believe he showed us that fanatisism with fervent followers can be precise, completely calculated, organized and extremely powerful.

I dont thing the American public has learned its lesson however. They don’t have perspective that history continues to repeat itself. Many people have completely forgotten the impact of 9/11 on our national security. I think the government has taken it as serious possible while the public (and even large divides of the government) has now come to almost a majority gripe against Americas efforts to thwart future attempts.

If anyone thinks that thinks there hasnt been a need for force to secure the safety of our country after 9/11 are still living in a safe little bubble where the twin towers collapsing are nothing more than TV violence they have long been desensitised to.

Yes, I think people have been out of touch with reality, but still are.  But to chastise Hitler for what he did then excuse the US for doing much of the same is quite a stretch.  Remember, Hitler invaded Poland on the excuse of threat to security.  There is no excuse for the most powerful nation in the world strong arming other countries and offering no diplomacy whatsoever.  So I should stop there lest this gets too political.

“And his death really had nothing to do with WW2…”

His death ignited World War One.

If World War One had not been fought then modern Poland does not exist. Danzig and the Polish Corridor were main objectives in Germany’s attack on Poland.

Ferdinand does not belong near the top of this list. However, He is not out of place on this list.

Jermofoot, I wish I had your opinion concerning this poll before I posted. Lennin and Gandhi would have been great additions. I considered Lennin, only to get captured by the thoughts of how Marx changed the world. At that point Lennin never came back in mind.

[Obergruppenfuhrer]

@ABWorsham:

@Jermofoot:

@ABWorsham:

Ferdinand out of place? Some people change the world by simply getting killed. If his assination had not happened would Europe plunge into World War One?

Ferdinand’s death caused the greatest war known to civilization; followed by an even greater destructive conflict. If we look at the aftermath of the World Wars, how can Archduke Ferdinand, by his assination not get placed on such a list.

I do agree with your suggestions concerning Lennin and Gandhi. Those additions would make for great discussion.

AB! There’s far too much free speech going on here. Why do I always have to hear it, through the SD to the Gestapo & finally through the Reichsmrshall in the middle of dinner? I’m dispatching a car to come pick you up. We really need to stop so much thinking. That’s for the Riech to do.  :lol:

There was a bigger part of the conflict than him alone.  And I don’t think getting assassinated is a “great” action, mostly because you don’t do anything but have someone kill you.  Lincoln and JFK should be up there then, and they have their own merits to go on.

And his death really had nothing to do with WW2…

@Obergruppenfuhrer:

I’m fessing up here. I voted for Hitler. “Man of the year.” I’m not quite sure what that means exactly so I took it as the most influential. I believe the atomic technology would have been discovered without Einstein, but perhaps not in the same time frame. There’s no way to know when it would have been available as a weapon without Einstein. His theory of relativity definately puts him in a close tie for me however.

I voted for Hitler because he demonstrated to modern civilization that an empire similar to the Romans, could still rise and pose a threat to the world, collectively. I think Hitler changed the manner in which the world now looks at those that rise to totalitarian power and the actions taken as a result. I believe he showed us that fanatisism with fervent followers can be precise, completely calculated, organized and extremely powerful.

I dont thing the American public has learned its lesson however. They don’t have perspective that history continues to repeat itself. Many people have completely forgotten the impact of 9/11 on our national security. I think the government has taken it as serious possible while the public (and even large divides of the government) has now come to almost a majority gripe against Americas efforts to thwart future attempts.

If anyone thinks that thinks there hasnt been a need for force to secure the safety of our country after 9/11 are still living in a safe little bubble where the twin towers collapsing are nothing more than TV violence they have long been desensitised to.

Yes, I think people have been out of touch with reality, but still are.  But to chastise Hitler for what he did then excuse the US for doing much of the same is quite a stretch.  Remember, Hitler invaded Poland on the excuse of threat to security.  There is no excuse for the most powerful nation in the world strong arming other countries and offering no diplomacy whatsoever.  So I should stop there lest this gets too political.

“And his death really had nothing to do with WW2…”

His death ignited World War One.

If World War One had not been fought then modern Poland does not exist. Danzig and the Polish Corridor were main objectives in Germany’s attack on Poland.

Ferdinand does not belong near the top of this list. However, He is not out of place on this list.

Jermofoot, I wish I had your opinion concerning this poll before I posted. Lennin and Gandhi would have been great additions. I considered Lennin, only to get captured by the thoughts of how Marx changed the world. At that point Lennin never came back in mind.

[Jermofoot]

@ABWorsham:

“And his death really had nothing to do with WW2…”

His death ignited World War One.

If World War One had not been fought then modern Poland does not exist. Danzig and the Polish Corridor were main objectives in Germany’s attack on Poland.

Ferdinand does not belong near the top of this list. However, He is not out of place on this list.

Jermofoot, I wish I had your opinion concerning this poll before I posted. Lennin and Gandhi would have been great additions. I considered Lennin, only to get captured by the thoughts of how Marx changed the world. At that point Lennin never came back in mind.

I do not doubt that his death gave the excuse to mobilize, which then activated alliances, but the underlying reasons for WW1 were more than a simple assassination.  And I fully agree that the result of WW1 lead to an inevitable WW2, but that was even less about one man’s death.

And I really have no idea the ability of Ferdinand, I would rather judge him on his greatness on his actions alone.  I just have nothing to go on.

Oh, and I meant Lennon, as in the Beatle, but if you would suggest Lenin, it wouldn’t seem out of place either.  :-D

[Obergruppenfuhrer]

@Jermofoot:

@ABWorsham:

“And his death really had nothing to do with WW2…”

His death ignited World War One.

If World War One had not been fought then modern Poland does not exist. Danzig and the Polish Corridor were main objectives in Germany’s attack on Poland.

Ferdinand does not belong near the top of this list. However, He is not out of place on this list.

Jermofoot, I wish I had your opinion concerning this poll before I posted. Lennin and Gandhi would have been great additions. I considered Lennin, only to get captured by the thoughts of how Marx changed the world. At that point Lennin never came back in mind.

I do not doubt that his death gave the excuse to mobilize, which then activated alliances, but the underlying reasons for WW1 were more than a simple assassination.  And I fully agree that the result of WW1 lead to an inevitable WW2, but that was even less about one man’s death.

And I really have no idea the ability of Ferdinand, I would rather judge him on his greatness on his actions alone.  I just have nothing to go on.

Oh, and I meant Lennon, as in the Beatle, but if you would suggest Lenin, it wouldn’t seem out of place either.  :-D

See I totally agree here. One mans death, while it may have been the preverbial stray that broke the camels back, was not the cause alone for war. There was much more than that.

The reason I fly the German Battle Standard for WWI as my Icon is out of symbolism for the effect of “The Treaty of Versailles.”

"The French politician Marshal Foch, as the Versailles Treaty was being signed, stated rather prophetically, “This is not peace; it is an armistice for 20 years.” "

Some argue that the treaty was lenient on Germany by its 14 points. I whole heartedly disagree. The allies additionally demanded Germany hand over thousands of men, police and ex soldiers, to be prisoners well after the treaty was signed. The treaty was fuel for the fire of German resentment and nationalistic sympathisers to Hitler; ultimately.

I believe the treaty was the main cause of WWII. I cannot speculate if the SA would have reached the same level of power to ultimately be assimilated into the 3rd Reich. I cannot possibly speculate in good faith, that Hitler wouldn’t have taken power. I can however argue that sympathy for the 3rd Reich would not have been neary as wide spread stemming from the resentments in post war Germany. This wasn’t a treaty to maintain “peace”. It was a treaty to extract satistaction to the European victors & make sure Germany couldn’t go to war again.  I think we all could agree it had a completely adverse affect.

[ABWorsham4]

LoL, Lennon actually crossed my mind.

I do agree with you that WWI was going to errupt. War was nearly unleashed in 1905 with the Moroccan crisis.

I thought tossing Ferdinand name into the list would be a great "curve ball’'. WWI needed a representive. Churchill, although a figure in WWI, made the fame in WWII.

Some great reading on the subject of the Empires of Europe before 1914 is, The Fall Of The Dynasties: The Collapse of the Old Order 1905-1922, by Edmond Taylor.

[Guest]

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?

[ABWorsham4]

Both were brought up. The first as a joke.

[Romulus]

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:

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/man_of_the_century/

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.

[ABWorsham4]

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.

[crusaderiv]

Well, Churchill by far.

John Lenon?
Reagan?

Come on….be serious!

[shermantank]

Why would John Lennon be in consideration for man of the century? That doesn’t make any sense.

[Imperious Leader]

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

[Obergruppenfuhrer]

:-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!)

[legion3]

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?

[ABWorsham4]

@legion3:

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.

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[U-505]

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.