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

[Seamer]

Ah yes OF, but how many millions DID'NT survive under Stalins purges, mass murders and genicidal policies. At least 20 million. Stalin made Hitler look like a lightweight when it came to the murdering stakes. Stalin would have to be histories greatest monster with Hitler a distant second. Thank god he died in the early 50,s because he would have tried to take Western Europe and would have most likely succeeded and even if he did'nt, millions would have died in the ensuing nuclear war. He had plan's to attack the west by 1949 but Barbarossa beat him to the punch. Germany knew that and had to try to secure it's western flank so as to fight a one front war in the east. Germany would have faced the brunt of a Stalin attack . Germany failed to defeat Stalin and the rest is history - Germany was occupied by the soviets and a 50 year cold war ensued. It goes back to my original posting - what if Germany and England had made peace in 1940? Stalin would have been defeated. No U-Boat blockade of Britain. The USA would never have their sphere if influence projected into Europe. Any way what is, is, i suppose but i still maintain that Churchill - and his willingness to continue fighting Germany in 1940 has had the greatest effest on the course of history.
PS i am glad for your ladyfriend

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Ah yes OF, but how many millions DID'NT survive under Stalins purges, mass murders and genicidal policies. At least 20 million. Stalin made Hitler look like a lightweight when it came to the murdering stakes. Stalin would have to be histories greatest monster with Hitler a distant second.

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.

Thank god he died in the early 50,s because he would have tried to take Western Europe and would have most likely succeeded and even if he did'nt, millions would have died in the ensuing nuclear war.

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, he would have been beat by Germany alone, only for the severe Russion winters.

Originally Posted by seamer

Germany failed to defeat Stalin and the rest is history

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.

Germany was occupied by the soviets and a 50 year cold war ensued. It goes back to my original posting - what if Germany and England had made peace in 1940? Stalin would have been defeated

This was the strange part of history, through the late 30s when Hitler was re-arming, Britain was doing the opposit, and disarming, so had we made any more pacts after the "Peace in out time", we might still have been part of Germany today, no , we could not have made peace without complete capitulation on Britains part.
.

Originally Posted by Seamer

No U-Boat blockade of Britain.

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.

Originally Posted by seamer

The USA would never have their sphere if influence projected into Europe. Any way what is, is, i suppose but i still maintain that Churchill - and his willingness to continue fighting Germany in 1940 has had the greatest effest on the course of history.

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.

[Beny]

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.

Thats a little unfair dont you think Ern?
Stalin murdured 30 million people indiscrimnantly. Most of them were murdured because he thought they would challenge his power. He desired power, not the ideal communist state as somebody such as Trosky or Lennin did. In fact Lennin tried very hard to prevent Stalin from ever takeing power because he realised what he was.

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, he would have been beat by Germany alone, only for the severe Russion winters.

I think I'm right in saying that there was a time when nearly 3/4 of the Russian budget was diverted to the Millitary. The west might have won but Stalin was crazy enough to not care, having wiped all life from the face of the earth with his nuclear missiles.

I'll continue later.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

Thats a little unfair dont you think Ern?
Stalin murdured 30 million people indiscrimnantly. Most of them were murdured because he thought they would challenge his power. He desired power, not the ideal communist state as somebody such as Trosky or Lennin did.

Lenin gave Stalin quite a bit of support inthe early years, in fact Lenin rewarded Stalin for his part in the October rebelion, and don't forget Stalin at times was the mouth peice for Lenin.

Originally Posted by Beny

I think I'm right in saying that there was a time when nearly 3/4 of the Russian budget was diverted to the Millitary. The west might have won but Stalin was crazy enough to not care, having wiped all life from the face of the earth with his nuclear missiles.

I'll continue later.

I have seen bigger threats post Stalin, like the Cuban Missile crisis, an exchange of missiles was only diverted at the 11th hour, by Soviet ships doing a 360 degree turn, the USA was not joking, missiles being installed in Cuba, just miles of the US land.
I doubt Kennedy was bluffing.would Stalin have turned back from the brink, I reckon he would.

[Beny]

Lenin gane Stalin quite a bit of support inthe early years, in fact Lenin rewarded Stalin for his part in the October rebelion, and don't forget Stalin at times was the mouth peice for Lenin.

True, but by Lennin's death, he was severaly worried by what considered to be a ruthless and un-ethical man, especialy after one incident where Stalin massacred roylist troops. In fact Lennin tried very hard to prevent Stalin from taking over, however Stalin managed to get past Lennin's blockades.

Secondly, I think it's debateable that Stalin was fighting for something... Hittler killed for a purpouse (ethnic cleansing), Stalin just did it randomly.

Again not true, The Germans could not take the main Russian cities

They could but they diverted from their main battle plan in order to secure the oil fields in the east. The major objective of Barbarossa was to take Moscow before the winter but unfortunetly for the Germans, Hittler got greedy and interfeared.

what if Germany and England had made peace in 1940? Stalin would have been defeated

It's hard enough to find the truth in the past, let alone play around with the what ifs?

It never worked though did it?,(the U-boat blockade)

One word... Rations! The U-boats absolutly rooted you pommies to the point where you were buying old destroyers off the Americans. England had a lot of capital ships but no enough escort ships.

subs became very vunerable,to air attack

Thing about U-boats is that they could stay under for longer than other subs... They were only really veunerable on the surface and that didd'nt happen often.

Anyway, I wasent even sure what we were all talking about a second ago... Churchill a great man. I think he was a **** to be honest... Would you still say he was so great if you knew that it was he who planned Gallipoli?? (Mind you if Gallipoli had worked it might have been worth it).

However, it could be said that hitler did a decent job of stopping old joe stalins thoghts on european domination as well.

Yes because he was so obviously readying for war with his conscripted troops, half of whom were on the otherside of the continent, His joke of a Navy, Joke of an airforce and an economy which was only just industrialising.

[Occasional Fan]

Hmm. This thread's taken a strange turn. We seem to be debating which of two of the most evil bastards ever to pollute the atmosphere with their exhaled breath was the less evil. That's the same as trying to determine which of them was the nicer bloke. And at their level, it doesn't really matter much, does it?

[Rachael]

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.

You're not giving Hitler his due here: he was, it's true, far from earth-shatteringly insightful and subtle in his political thought and aspirations.. but Hitler was, if anything, the more idealistic of the two. His thought being populist, romantic and reactionary (and often incoherent) tosh doesn't stop it being motivated by idealism.

As for the use of the word "evil"... my impression has long been that in different circumstances, either Hitler or Stalin could have become eminently respectable world leaders. That is not to excuse the atrocity of the acts committed.. but surely acts committed (not people) are "evil".. 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).

I'd agree that holding the wider world entirely accountable for acts initiated and sustained by / under Hitler would be as daft as blaming the failings of "society" for the rise of thuggery... but that is at least PART of the story... and just dismissing the guy as "evil" is too convenient in the way it evades that part of the story (and absolves others of implication).

[Milo]

Ahhh. The voice of Neville Chamberlain.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Rachael

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

No, no and no again. Evil acts are not committed by good people. They are committed by evil people. Hitler and Stalin were evil. I know that's an opinion, Rachael, and I respect your right to yours, but I do find yours more than a little odd.

[Milo]

I would love to know under which 'different circumstances' Hitler could have become an 'eminently respectable world leader', Rachael. Would this have been the world where there were no Jews, Roma, opposition parties etc etc etc.