• 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
phattonez

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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?
 
phattonez said:
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?
Click to expand...

Successful in what context?
 
Crovax said:
At a cost of 27 million citizens, The US arguably gained more while losing a lot less people.
Click to expand...

What tangible benefit did the US gain? Stalin gained Eastern Europe. The US got to subsidize Western Europe. And let's not forget that Stalin's gains turned into threats against the US.

Besides, I don't think that Stalin had any issues with killing off large portions of his population.
 
My vote goes to Truman who isn’t even on the list

The number of lives he saved by making the decision to drop the bomb was astounding

In 2nd place would be Churchill
 
gdgyva said:
My vote goes to Truman who isn’t even on the list

The number of lives he saved by making the decision to drop the bomb was astounding

In 2nd place would be Churchill
Click to expand...

I didn't include Truman because he was there for only a short part of the war and arguably Roosevelt would have made the same decision.
 
gdgyva said:
My vote goes to Truman who isn’t even on the list

The number of lives he saved by making the decision to drop the bomb was astounding

In 2nd place would be Churchill
Click to expand...

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.
 
phattonez said:
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.
Click to expand...

Churchill became PM in 1940, and Poland had already fallen.
 
phattonez said:
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.
Click to expand...

he certainly voiced his desire to gas the Kurds in Iraq in 1919 .............. civilians .............
 
phattonez said:
What tangible benefit did the US gain? Stalin gained Eastern Europe. The US got to subsidize Western Europe. And let's not forget that Stalin's gains turned into threats against the US.

Besides, I don't think that Stalin had any issues with killing off large portions of his population.
Click to expand...

The US ended WWII as the richest nation in the world having absorbed the entire wealth of the UK which was left flat broke. The UK was required to pay off its debts owing to the USA for decades to come; the final installment was repaid in 2006. The US certainly did not 'get to subsidise' the UK:
 
phattonez said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal

Britain went to war when Hitler invaded Poland. When Stalin took Poland (again, and fully), Britain went home.
Click to expand...

The Britain that went home in 1945 was exhausted by 6 years of war. Not only flat broke but deeply in debt to the USA. The possibility of the UK launching a war against the USSR to remove them from Poland did not exist
 
phattonez said:
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.
Click to expand...

Churchill did not betray Poland, either in 1940 or 1945. It was not he who returned Russians to near certain death in the USSR but his successor as PM Attlee, who took office in July 1945.

And, by the way I was at the time fine with bombing German civilians. Taking the view those those who made the tanks were as much a legitimate target s those who manned them in battle.
 
phattonez said:
What tangible benefit did the US gain? Stalin gained Eastern Europe. The US got to subsidize Western Europe. And let's not forget that Stalin's gains turned into threats against the US.

Besides, I don't think that Stalin had any issues with killing off large portions of his population.
Click to expand...

Gee buddy, let's see..... we gained the destruction of the genocidal, fascist regimes which were psychotic and threatened the rest of the world, for starters.
 
Sweden said:
The US ended WWII as the richest nation in the world having absorbed the entire wealth of the UK which was left flat broke. The UK was required to pay off its debts owing to the USA for decades to come; the final installment was repaid in 2006. The US certainly did not 'get to subsidise' the UK:
Click to expand...

What do you call the Marshall Plan?
 
phattonez said:
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.
Click to expand...

.....Yeah, I can't get too upset over people who collaborated with Hitler being punished for their actions.
 
Sweden said:
The Britain that went home in 1945 was exhausted by 6 years of war. Not only flat broke but deeply in debt to the USA. The possibility of the UK launching a war against the USSR to remove them from Poland did not exist
Click to expand...

The Soviets were belligerent from the start. They were certainly not a country to be allied with.
 
Tigerace117 said:
.....Yeah, I can't get too upset over people who collaborated with Hitler being punished for their actions.
Click to expand...

The Cossacks surrendered to the allies. It was the Soviets that they fought. They trusted the British, and the British sent them to Stalin. Many killed themselves instead. There was no good excuse for what the British did.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Gee buddy, let's see..... we gained the destruction of the genocidal, fascist regimes which were psychotic and threatened the rest of the world, for starters.
Click to expand...

And we aided a genocidal Communist regime to dominate Eastern Europe for decades.
 
phattonez said:
The Cossacks surrendered to the allies. It was the Soviets that they fought. They trusted the British, and the British sent them to Stalin. Many killed themselves instead. There was no good excuse for what the British did.
Click to expand...

The Cossacks fought alongside one of the most evil regimes in history. They facilitated that regime's slaughter of innocent people. Fighting against Stalin is still fighting the Allies.

Yes, the British sent Nazi collaborators back to face a country with no love for Nazi collaborators. Boo hoo.

Your sympathy for thugs fighting for Nazi Germany noted, but the fact remains that they had a choice, and they chose to support Hitler.
 
phattonez said:
And we aided a genocidal Communist regime to dominate Eastern Europe for decades.
Click to expand...

Uh, actually buddy, pretty much from the second the war was over we were trying to send agents into Eastern Europe. It was worth dealing with Stalin to destroy Hitler and Tojo.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The Cossacks fought alongside one of the most evil regimes in history. They facilitated that regime's slaughter of innocent people. Fighting against Stalin is still fighting the Allies.

Yes, the British sent Nazi collaborators back to face a country with no love for Nazi collaborators. Boo hoo.

Your sympathy for thugs fighting for Nazi Germany noted, but the fact remains that they had a choice, and they chose to support Hitler.
Click to expand...

When you're stuck between Nazis and Communists, you have to fight to survive. The Nazis weren't throwing them in Gulags.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Uh, actually buddy, pretty much from the second the war was over we were trying to send agents into Eastern Europe. It was worth dealing with Stalin to destroy Hitler and Tojo.
Click to expand...

Why pick a side at all?
 
Sweden said:
The US ended WWII as the richest nation in the world having absorbed the entire wealth of the UK which was left flat broke. The UK was required to pay off its debts owing to the USA for decades to come; the final installment was repaid in 2006. The US certainly did not 'get to subsidise' the UK:
Click to expand...

During WWII? The US certainly sold everything that was requested of us to the Allies - ammo, arty, ships, aircraft, trucks, beef, grain, preserved food of all kinds, leather goods, POL, finished & semi-finished goods. We sold cash, we sold & extended credit, we traded goods for leases on bases & we did, in effect, lend credit & carried the Allies when their money & specie ran out. In effect, we had to come in on the side of the Allies eventually, we'd lent them a lot of money/credit, & if they lost the war, the US banking & financial system, & national economy would also have suffered - not as catastrophically as the Allies would have if they'd lost WWII, but still.

& given the choices, I think FDR was the best actor in WWII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom