Who is the most influential person to have walked this earth??

[Zainub]

Me too, I'd like to know that as well.

[Rachael]

Re: evil deeds rather than evil doers... look no further (I beieve) than the Vatican for a pretty authoritative tradition of focussing on the former.

Surely the lesson to be drawn from the dismal record of 20th century genocide is first and foremost that it is not, on the whole, perpetrated by monsters but by ordinary people who might otherwise have made perfectly agreeable neighbours...

Of course, one has to look no further than assorted terrorists turned statesmen (from Nelson Mandela through to Martin McGuiness) to see something wrong with the notion that evil deeds are necessarily done by evil men...and the moment one scales down the charge the absudity of focussing on the does not the deed becomes evident: we all do things that are not good.. but that hardly makes all of us "bad".

[Zainub]

There is a difference in doing thats that are "not good". And doing things that are down right evil.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Re: evil deeds rather than evil doers... look no further (I beieve) than the Vatican for a pretty authoritative tradition of focussing on the former.

Surely the lesson to be drawn from the dismal record of 20th century genocide is first and foremost that it is not, on the whole, perpetrated by monsters but by ordinary people who might otherwise have made perfectly agreeable neighbours...

Of course, one has to look no further than assorted terrorists turned statesmen (from Nelson Mandela through to Martin McGuiness) to see something wrong with the notion that evil deeds are necessarily done by evil men...and the moment one scales down the charge the absudity of focussing on the does not the deed becomes evident: we all do things that are not good.. but that hardly makes all of us "bad".

Rachael, I was just about to post my respoonse to this, but I would have had to leave the forum for good.

I can only echo the good old warning. 'I little learning is a dangerous thing'.

[Richard Jenkins]

A difficult one.
Someone religious? Perhaps. J.C (it gets stars otherwise!), Buddah, Mohammed, and all the other religious figure heads I've forgotten probably influence a lot of peole's lives.

Sir Alexander Fleming's 'discovery' of penicillin and the subsequent advent of antibiotics must rate as one of the tops of the C20 (without that I'd be dead!)

On this board? Well lots of posters catch my eye from time to time! Kirsty Harris, Goatman,Oliver ,Rachel, Ernest, RWS, RBLC and teatime 'fat bottom girls' fatcat make me smile:cry:whinge:despair (delete where applicable!). Lots of people actually! Anyone in the members list can produce brilliance (which shows what a good board we have.... take a bow Admin!)

On a personal level Gerad Manley Hopkins and John Ruskin both inflence my ideas , as does Ralph Waldo Emerson and William Blake.

I do try (and fail ) to live my life along a roughly peaceful ethos, but this isn't always possible (and I don't want to turn this board into a church!)

[Teatime FatCat]

Oh Jenko, I'm touched! I've missed you on this board. Just for that you can virtually pick me up and give me a big cyber-kiss. However, just make sure that I'm facing the right virtual way!

[Ernest]

To say Hitler was the more idealistic of the two, I would say can't be right.

Hitler was an adventurer, first he capitalised on the poverty of the German peoples, and gave then work and so they suffered hunger no more, well for some that was true.
Ethinic minorities in Germany was blamed for Germanys pre Hitler economic woes, and to be fair the latter was as bad as it gets, and the Jews in particular took the brunt of this blame by Hitler.
Mind you Jews were in the higher places, because jews the world over work hard to that end, and they support each other.
But Hitler did not do an Idi Amin and get rid of them, no he had 6 million of them gassed, how does this fit in with an idealist Rachael, and can the man in this instance not be called evil, along with his deeds, the teo where inseperable.

Originally Posted by Rachael

and I suspect few of those acts would ever have been witnessed had either found greater acceptance in the wider world and less beligerence from ***** like Churchill (I'm thinking in the 30s, when the latter shouted his mouth off like a complete imbecile at any and every opportunity, making life immeasurably more difficult (amongst other things) for those trying to steer Hitler in move reasonable directions).

Would have made no difference at all, he had no regard for anyone, he took no notice of the weak Neville Chamberlain, you know the one "Peace in out time", the reverse is true Rachael, had Chamberlain listened to voices like Churchill, and had re-armed on a massive scale, instead of appeasing Hitler, while cutting British armed forces at the same time, maybe Hitler may have run scared of invading France-Poland ect, maybe his generals would not have meakly accepted his dictats, and refused to let their troops gas the Jews.populist amoungst the people or not.
Stalin on the other hand was a person you may well call in a way idealistic, can't be discussed in any length on a foum, the Stalin issue is far to big.

In 1901 Stalin joined the Social Democratic Lanour Party, and whereas most of the leaders were living in exile, he stayed in Russia where he helped to organize industrial resistance to Tsarism.
This was his idealism, he wanted rid of Tsarism and wanted the land given back to the peasants., and he had the trust of Lenin in the first place, it was Lenin who made Stalin so importent.
On 18th April, 1902, Stalin was arrested after coordinating a strike at the large Rothschild plant at Batum, yes he was a revolusionary prepared to take the consqueces, he was deported to Siberia for this action.
So Rachael Stalin had a vission for the people, a true Bolshevik.
Stalin turned into the despot he was, and he was just that, because his beloved peasants thought more about their new gained lands than his beloved Soviet Union,this is in a nutshell, but space dictates thats all it can be.

Originally Posted by Rachael

my impression has long been that in different circumstances, either Hitler or Stalin could have become eminently respectable world leaders.

These two wher both were world leaders, they had their chances what stopped them being respectable world leaders, I know the answer because in a free world the evil actions of these two leaders. would not and could not have been tolerated in a free world.
In fact they where despised.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Ernest

You can't compare Hitler with Stalin, and he was no worse than Hitler, Stalin as evil as he was, thought his actions were for the common good, far more complicated that Hitler, who just wanted to rule Europe, and eliminate infearior races, Hitler in this respect ws the more evil of the two..

Stalin committed genecide on a far greater scale than Hitler. Stalin never acted for the greater good - only for his own. He murdered 20000 of his military officers prior to the war out of paranioa. He murdered far more of HIS OWN people while in power than the total killed during WWII. On this you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Ernest

Maybe but who would have pressed the button, the Russion Red army was no match for Western Forces, so I doubt Stalin would have been that stupid, ..

Not true. The Soviets had a far greater military power in may 1945 and far shorter supply lines than the allies. It was only that the US had the Nuke that stopped him. He was buding his time until he had nukes as well. The grim reaper beat him to the punch fortunately.

Originally Posted by Ernest

he would have been beat by Germany alone, only for the severe Russion winters.
Again not true, The Germans could not take the main Russian cities, like I said supply lines to the German troops was that poor because of the severe winter, not because Russia was in anyway superior, had they come out and fought, Russia and Stalin would have been defeated by Germany,had Germany attacked the cities earlier,the war might have taken a different course. Britain supplied Stalin with food and weapons by convoys taking the north sea route, Russia needed, and got a lot of help..

Which is excactly my point and the reason i chose Churchill and his determination to continue fighting in 1940 as the action that influenced the course of history more than anything else. Has England gone for peace, Hitler would have had an extra 500 000 troops to throw into the Russian campiagn and all the associated resources. He would not have had to build U-Boats but tanks instead. He would have not had to fight the battle of Britain. He would not have had his cities bombed to rubble. He would not have had to divert forces to North Africa. It was because of English intervention that Greece and Yukoslavia chose to fight rather than remaining neutral forcing Hitler to divert forces and waste vauable campignig time to defeat those countries to secure his southern flank. If it was,nt for Churchill, Hitler would have flogged Russia with one hand tied behind their backs long before the winter set in.

Originally Posted by Ernest

It never worked though did it?, Britain had the largest navy in the world,and destroyed a lot os subs, and yes we lost quite a bit of tonnage, but the U Boats blockade of Britain never worked in that it had any impact in the outcome of the war, and the subs became very vunerable,to air attack,unlike the Royal Navies blockade of Germany, who had little opposition.
Yes this is the absolate truth, had Churchill not taken a stand, Europe would have been United under Hitler, by force or otherwise, some collaberated with Hitler, but what would the consiquences with the US have been, in particular after they had been dragged in with Japan sinking the best part of their navy at Pearl Harbour..

So we agree. If England had had chosen peace in 1940, Hitler would have won, Stalin would have lost and the whole course of history and the effect on every person on this planet would have changed dramatically. Thus my original choice as Churchill and i have thrice outlined my reasons. No-one else in the above list has had such a decisive effect on the shape of world power politics.

[Beny]

but surely acts committed (not people) are "evil"

Take away the humans, and there is no-one left to concive good and evil.

I bet Hittler didd'nt think that he was evil...

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Beny

I bet Hittler didd'nt think that he was evil...

Absolutely, though I'd also bet that he'd have accepted harsh judgement of the means by which he (or his regime) attempted to achieve some of his ends. What we're both saying here, though, is that we are deeply suspicious of any demonisation that transfers responsibility for appalling acts from the realm of the ordinary and everyday (the way we ordinarily are, the way we ordinarily talk about things) into some other realm (incomprehensible evil, madness, whatever).

That's a healthy and to my mind eminently defensible outlook: there may be sufficient dense historical detail to calm some of our suspicions on that front.. but that has to be set alongside a well documented cultural proclivity for this sort of convenient transference... one so deeply embedded in modern mindsets that even before one starts out in enquiry one is anticipating it.

On the broader front, this counterfactual history lark has long struck me as having quite a bit of merit when tackled with the sort of rigour and expertise it deserves.. if only because it is so often unthinkingly implied in so much we encounter: it focuses attention on a morass of assumptions of causation that all too frequently seem unsustainable when openly articulated.

Niall Ferguson's the main man for this type of history in relation to 20th century European history. He's documented, for instance, that in 1914 the majority of the Cabinet favored non-intervention in the war with Germany. He's argued very convincingly that if Britain hadn't intervened there would actually have been a German victory in a very limited continental war against France and Russia in 1915 or 1916 with (and I'll quote him here) "quite benign consequences. Not least -- and this is a point often misunderstood -- for the Jews of Eastern Europe, who would be much better off under the Wilhelmian Imperial Reich than they were under Czarist Russian rule".

Ferguson's adamant that a German victory in a smaller war would have ensured the conditions for the emergence of the Nazi regime would never have been in place: there would have been no Hitler, at least in the sense that there would have been no leadership role open to him that would have led to him becoming the figure we talk of today.

Interesting stuff.. and I believe there's actually far more of it in relation to the late 30s and early 40s.