• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who was the best leader during WWII?

Who was the best actor in WWII?

  • Churchill

    Votes: 46 50.5%
  • Hirohito

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hitler

    Votes: 4 4.4%
  • Mussolini

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Roosevelt

    Votes: 33 36.3%
  • Stalin

    Votes: 7 7.7%

  • Total voters
    91
Wars were fought differently back then. You had the London Blitz and the use of the V1 and V2 rockets by Hitler. Churchill certainly did authorize firebombing of German cities and Roosevelt did the same for Tokyo Japan. Stalin leveled every German city as he went for Berlin and who knows how many civilians he killed. Both in the USSR and in Germany and later in Eastern Europe. Mussolini was a lost cause and had to be rescued by the Germans. With Tojo in charge in Japan, perhaps Hirohito was just a bystander who couldn't really challenge the military. Then you have the biological use in China by the Japanese and the experiments in China also conducted by the Japanese.

The thing is one must view WWII in the context of the way it was fought, the era in which it was fought and what was the normal rules of war. Bombing cities for the most part wasn't to kill civilians, it was to destroy manufacturing of war materials. Although Hitler thought he could destroy the English moral with the London Blitz. Placing WWII into the context of war used today isn't right in my book.

I think the choice comes down to two. Churchill who saved England and Western Europe by his bulldog stance or Stalin who finally captured Berlin and gained Eastern Europe in the process. Being biased against Stalin and communism, I'll go with Churchill.

Your point, that viewing history through modern eyes is a mistake, is a very good one. We now know that both the US and British air commanders were wrong when they said that Germany could be defeated solely by bombing. But it is understandable that both governments were attracted by the possibility.
 
When Britain declared war against Germany Chamberlain was PM, not Churchill. and as someone already said here, Attlee took over as PM by the time the war ended, so your facts do not jive with reality.

Who was at Yalta and Tehran? Attlee? No.
 
So by meaning "morally good" you include these guys??

Hirohito, Hitler, Mussolini??

I just put up a list of the leaders of major powers at the time. It's up to you to decide who is morally best.
 
No, they were "only" exterminating millions of innocent people. I hate to burst your bubble, but "fighting to survive" is much different than "actively and happily collaborating with Nazis", which is what the Cossacks did.

As were the Communists!
 
I think the choice comes down to two. Churchill who saved England and Western Europe by his bulldog stance or Stalin who finally captured Berlin and gained Eastern Europe in the process. Being biased against Stalin and communism, I'll go with Churchill.

It's hard to say that England and Western Europe were saved when all of their empires collapsed.
 
Roosevelt would have to be my pick.

Among the Allies he was the most straightforward and open about his position. His goal was to end the war.

Churchill and Stalin were both very concerned about what the post war world would look like and based their proposals and strategies around that.

While I don't think Churchill and Stalin were bad people for wanting to expand/keep intact their empires, I think Roosevelt's aims and actions were morally superior.

I want to choose Roosevelt, I really do, but at best he was a useful idiot when it came to Stalin. This passage from Wikipedia is exemplary of Roosevelt's ignorance (at best) of Stalin. This is regarding the Warsaw uprising:

Wikipedia said:
Despite the fact that Polish and later Royal Air Force (RAF) planes flew missions over Warsaw dropping supplies from 4 August on, the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) planes did not join the operation. The Allies specifically requested the use of Red Army airfields near Warsaw on 20 August but were refused by Stalin on 22 August (he referred to the insurrectionists as "a handful of criminals"). After Stalin's objections to support for the uprising, Churchill telegraphed Roosevelt on 25 August and proposed sending planes in defiance of Stalin and to "see what happens". Roosevelt replied on 26 August that "I do not consider it advantageous to the long-range general war prospect for me to join you in the proposed message to Uncle Joe."[33] The commander of the British air drop, Air Marshal Sir John Slessor, later stated, "How, after the fall of Warsaw, any responsible statesman could trust the Russian Communist further than he could kick him, passes the comprehension of ordinary men."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#Warsaw_Uprising.2C_1944
 
The reason I can't choose Churchill is because he was always fine bombing civilians and his ultimate betrayal of Poland which is why Britain went to war in the first place. He also betrayed plenty of those like the Cossacks who fought against the Soviets but were ultimately sent back to Stalin.

Let us remember that it was Chamberlain, not Churchill who was instrumental in beefing up the RAF which was instrumental in staving off
the Luftwaffe during the Battle for Britain.

The country that gain the most during WWII was definitely Russia.
 
I want to choose Roosevelt, I really do, but at best he was a useful idiot when it came to Stalin. This passage from Wikipedia is exemplary of Roosevelt's ignorance (at best) of Stalin. This is regarding the Warsaw uprising:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#Warsaw_Uprising.2C_1944

I don't see him as a useful idiot...I just see him more concerned with finishing the war and having the Russians join us in finishing the war in Japan (which the Russians had agreed to do). At this point in the war the US were doing the bulk of the fighting in the Pacific. It was going to be US Marines and soldiers that would have to fight their way to the mainland of Japan and end the war. Churchill is more concerned with post-war Europe while Americans are more concerned with finishing the war.

Also, if the USSR rolled in and crushed the rebellion neither Americans or the British would driver through Germany into Poland. Any type of support to the rebellion would of been symbolic.

I also think in typical Churchill fashion...a few months later he basically agrees to splitting up Europe with the USSR giving the bulk of eastern Europe to the Russians.

At the end of the day...lets say we dropped food and supplies to Warsaw took over Poland. Lets go further...lets say that the Allies ended up deciding they wouldn't let that happen and invaded Eastern Europe. At that point of the war...who do you think would of done the bulk of the fighting?

I think Roosevelt if anything was a realist in this situation. Churchill would of been more than willing to risk American blood for British ambitions.
 
Aside from a ten-day period in June and early July of 1941 where he had a paralysing nervous breakdown during the openning moves of Operation Barbarossa, the greatest leader of WWII was Joseph Stalin, as his personal force of will and bloody-minded purpose allowed him and the Soviet Red Army to slow, stop, and grind up the German and wider European fascist forces which had invaded the USSR. It was Stalin's Red Army which did by far the most damage to the fascist militaries arrayed against the Allies. It also secured Eastern Europe for the Soviet Empire's hegemony until the 1990's. Stalin was a monster but it is hard to argue that he wasn't the greatest leader of that period. Please do not confuse my use of "great" with the idea that he was a "good" leader. He wasn't. Morality and efficiency were almost entirely lacking from his repetoire of skills. But he was victorious despite immense challenges and under his leadership the Soviet Union came out as one of the big winners of the war, despite the appaling death toll and destruction which approached forty million Soviets, Ukrainians and Balts dead.

While not grammatically sound, the "goodest" leader of the war was likely Franklin Roosevelt and following him Harry Truman (who might have been "gooder" if his wartime tenure had not been so short). These men piloted their country through a global, total war while generally preserving the institutions of American freedom and liberty to which they had sworn an oath to preserve. They had lapses like the dreadful abuse of Americans of Japanese descent being interned or the human medical experimentation on African-Americans at Tuskeegee, but generally they managed to preserve American liberty through this brutal, existential struggle of the 1940's. They forged the US-dominated "Grand Area", which, with the exception of the loss of China in 1949, has remained intact into the 21rst Century, as a defacto invisible empire which appears on no map, but which has enriched America greatly.

The worst leaders of the war were Hitler and Mussolini who destroyed their own countries and bathed Europe in the blood of millions for their blind ambition and selfish vain-glory. Hirohito was an anachronism who did not really belong in the 20th Century but Tojo was the real villain and takes his place beside Hitler and Mussolini as a self destructive fool of the highest order.

Churchill was the sneakiest and most calculating of the lot and was planning a Third World War with the Soviets when the sensible British electorate ran him out of office as unfit for peacetime leadership. Neville Chamberlain was as foolish as the Axis leaders for his reciprocal belief that "peace in our time" at all costs would work with such predatory men like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin in the political mix. And then there's the French. N'uff said.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Nihil obstat

There is much here with which to agree.

However the record shows that the dying FDR did indeed believe that he had the measure of Stalin and that they could reach agreements that would stick. It took almost two years for the Americans to fully realise that the Russians had played them for fools. In this respect Fdr's legacy was a poor one.

I'll take a look then. But FDR's family background was - in economic terms - as brutal as anyone could wish. Not as hands-on as Stalin, perhaps, but more than bloody enough. We'll see. Certainly FDR never bothered - TMK - to enroll in a seminary.
 
Churchill
Hirohito
Hitler
Mussolini
Roosevelt
Stalin

I've had a tough time coming up with who the BEST actor is. It's easy to find the worst. There are plenty of bad candidates around, but I'm having a hard time finding the best, let alone a good option.

By best, I mean morally good. I don't mean the most successful. That obviously goes to Stalin. Who was the most morally upright leader during this time?

Rats! Another poll in which I cannot respond. The answer was General George S, Patton.
 
Your point, that viewing history through modern eyes is a mistake, is a very good one. We now know that both the US and British air commanders were wrong when they said that Germany could be defeated solely by bombing. But it is understandable that both governments were attracted by the possibility.

Everyone - German, Italian, US - was convinced that the Bombers would always get through. That's why the US developed B-17s & stationed them in Hawaii & the Philippines (B-17s were good against fixed targets, terrible against ships that could maneuver @ sea - which is why they were largely withdrawn from the ETO, TMK). The damage that could be inflicted by conventional weapons from bombers was vastly overstated - except for special circumstances like the incendiary raids over Japan, & the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan.

Curiously, Germany never did develop heavy bombers, nor did Japan. France was overrun, I don't recall what Italy did in that regard. The USSR had its hands full - they produced more fighters, & the Allies supplied them with transports & fighters & pursuit planes, as I recall.

Again, WWII turned into a war of attrition, the worse kind of war possible for the Axis powers. The German war turned into two fronts, three if you count the African campaigns. Both Germany & Japan apparently expected short, sharp glorious wars, & time unmolested to absorb the conquests & start the next cycle of encroachments & rhetorical bluster. Until Germany & Japan both overstepped their bounds, & found themselves in a real shooting match to the death.
 
Aside from a ten-day period in June and early July of 1941 where he had a paralysing nervous breakdown during the openning moves of Operation Barbarossa, the greatest leader of WWII was Joseph Stalin, as his personal force of will and bloody-minded purpose allowed him and the Soviet Red Army to slow, stop, and grind up the German and wider European fascist forces which had invaded the USSR. It was Stalin's Red Army which did by far the most damage to the fascist militaries arrayed against the Allies. It also secured Eastern Europe for the Soviet Empire's hegemony until the 1990's. Stalin was a monster but it is hard to argue that he wasn't the greatest leader of that period. Please do not confuse my use of "great" with the idea that he was a "good" leader. He wasn't. Morality and efficiency were almost entirely lacking from his repetoire of skills. But he was victorious despite immense challenges and under his leadership the Soviet Union came out as one of the big winners of the war, despite the appaling death toll and destruction which approached forty million Soviets, Ukrainians and Balts dead.

While not grammatically sound, the "goodest" leader of the war was likely Franklin Roosevelt and following him Harry Truman (who might have been "gooder" if his wartime tenure had not been so short). These men piloted their country through a global, total war while generally preserving the institutions of American freedom and liberty to which they had sworn an oath to preserve. They had lapses like the dreadful abuse of Americans of Japanese descent being interned or the human medical experimentation on African-Americans at Tuskeegee, but generally they managed to preserve American liberty through this brutal, existential struggle of the 1940's. They forged the US-dominated "Grand Area", which, with the exception of the loss of China in 1949, has remained intact into the 21rst Century, as a defacto invisible empire which appears on no map, but which has enriched America greatly.

The worst leaders of the war were Hitler and Mussolini who destroyed their own countries and bathed Europe in the blood of millions for their blind ambition and selfish vain-glory. Hirohito was an anachronism who did not really belong in the 20th Century but Tojo was the real villain and takes his place beside Hitler and Mussolini as a self destructive fool of the highest order.

Churchill was the sneakiest and most calculating of the lot and was planning a Third World War with the Soviets when the sensible British electorate ran him out of office as unfit for peacetime leadership. Neville Chamberlain was as foolish as the Axis leaders for his reciprocal belief that "peace in our time" at all costs would work with such predatory men like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin in the political mix. And then there's the French. N'uff said.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Interesting take and well thought out....
 
Roosy & Truman.

Churchill a far distant 3rd.

WWII was another useless war caused by the hangover from WWI.

So much for King's and and their paupers.
 
If George Patton had his way, the World would be different place today.
If the Military was left to do it's job, there would be no War.
 
If George Patton had his way, the World would be different place today.
If the Military was left to do it's job, there would be no War.

George Patton would have lost us Western Europe.
 
Over the hills & far away

If George Patton had his way, the World would be different place today.
If the Military was left to do it's job, there would be no War.

Patton would have gotten a lot more people killed in the ETO - & short of nuking Soviet targets & depots & transportation hubs & etc. (E. Europe as well as the various SSRs), we would have lost. The Germans were out of it, the Brits were out of it, the French were out of it. The Allied military's job was to win WWII, not to precipitate the end of the World - or @ least, the end of the Western World.
 
Churchill
Hirohito
Hitler
Mussolini
Roosevelt
Stalin

I've had a tough time coming up with who the BEST actor is. It's easy to find the worst. There are plenty of bad candidates around, but I'm having a hard time finding the best, let alone a good option.

By best, I mean morally good. I don't mean the most successful. That obviously goes to Stalin. Who was the most morally upright leader during this time?

FDR. He won, took minimal casualties by waiting to jump in until all ducks were in a row, and then let his generals do their thing.
 
Re: Over the hills & far away

Patton would have gotten a lot more people killed in the ETO - & short of nuking Soviet targets & depots & transportation hubs & etc. (E. Europe as well as the various SSRs), we would have lost. The Germans were out of it, the Brits were out of it, the French were out of it. The Allied military's job was to win WWII, not to precipitate the end of the World - or @ least, the end of the Western World.

But ,would have put an end to subsequent wars and Police actions, thus, saving lives, treasure and the misery of many Military families.

I have friends from the neighborhood, STILL, rotting in Cambodia......
 
Back
Top Bottom