Strongest leader of WW2

No, I do NOT favour Stalin in any way, I am just accepting that he did many important and considerable things such as making a very poor and devastated country until being the 2nd superpower of Earth... How he did it? As a perfect follower of Machiavelli... it didn't matter...

I didn't say the opposite!

 

Well I am back at the behest of KnightMove!
Sorry, I've been a tad busy...ok lazy..lately.

Originally posted by Friedrich:

Absolutely right. If I had meant best or humanitarian I would have said so...although really none of them except maybe FDR could qualify for humanitarian. I meant strongest as in the one who excercised the most power and commanded the most respect, or at least fear in their respective country. And in my opinion, that is definitely Stalin, followed by Hitler.
To quote myself:

Stalin did it all, rose to the top from the absolute bottom (like Hitler) and won the largest war in human history, turning his nation into a superpower for decades (not like Hitler).

 

I'm glad I brought you back, even though we have differing opinions.

Still I smell a little inconsistence...

The one exercising the most power will per definition be a totalitarian tyrant, so you can reduce the poll on Hitler and Stalin. This is obvious.

About the "command respect" thingy, a thought provoking impulse: Does someone commanding respect have the need to cut of the heads of thousands and thousands of fellow citizens?

About "strongest" and "best": We're NOT talking about humanitarian attitude, but leadership skills. A good leader is PER DEFINITION strong. A weak leader is a bad leader!

 

In the 1st 100 days of FDR's presidency, every piece of legislation he put before Congress got passed. FDR commanded a LOT of respect and had quie a bit of power. Plus, I didn't want to limit the poll, and it was interesting watching peoples take on strength. A good case can be made for any of the leaders, I just personally prefer Salin as the strongest.

Speaking of respect, I threw in fear so posters could have a choice in what they wanted to expand upon in their argument. Certainly respect is not achieved through mass executions, but fear certainly is!

Posted by KnightMove:

The way Stalin kicked his country into shape to fight Germany and become a superpower shows that he knew how to lead and transform his nation. He did it in a brutal way, but that does not make him necessarily a bad leader, just a murderous one. He still won the war against the most powerful country in the world, so he could lead well enough. And he definitely had strength of will and strength in force.

 

Das Reich, your last post is great! I totally agree!

More respected leader? Churchill.
More feared? Stalin.

I agree. But as Das Reich said, Stalin was a very good leader (not humanitarian, an skilled politician). He was a good administrator, he was very wise, ruthless and manipulative. A stateman must have all that. Morally, he is despicable. Politically, he's just awesome.

 

I'm only afraid that if the Germans had taken Moscow (which was a realistic scenario, thanx to Stalin), NOBODY would vote for him in such a poll.

Stalin succeeded, but only being fortunate and his enemies making too many mistakes.

A STRONG leader is also someone who doesn't need to strike lucky!

Taking this reasoning into account, it's impossible to favour Stalin over Churchill.

 

Stalin wasn't lucky. Hitler was lucky. Stalin came to power for his personal intrigues and machiavelical habilities. And his enemies didn't make many mistakes. Stalin made sure that all his enemies were annihilated. They can't make mistakes if they're dead...

 

I think the main difference was that Hitler killed his enemies and Stalin was capable of killing everybody. None of the revolutionary friends of Stalin were alive by the WW2, he had killed them all.With the same standards none of the following would have lived for long in nazi Germany: Göring, Himmler,Göbbels, Hess, Bormann etc etc. Quite a difference, I think. Yet Stalin managed to stay in power, and fear was his weapon.

Quite unbelievable, I think...

 

I was referring to WW2, and here Stalin was indeed lucky.

I can't help, but you keep identifying "strongest" with "most violent and totalitarian". Well then, we need another poll, without Churchill and Roosevelt.