Who was the Greatest Leader of WWII? (1 Viewer)

Who was the Greatest Leader of WWII?

  • Japan: Emperor Hirohito

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • China: Chiang Kai-shek

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Norway: Haakon VII

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Spain: Francisco Franco

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Morocco: Mohammed V

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • India: Subhash Chandra Bose

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Germany: Heinrich Himmler

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    84
  • Poll closed .

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Oh..the avatar is cute. Who ever saved their baby picture (ultra-sound) sure has come a long way. Still has a big head though.:lol:
The avatar and siggy are fitting of some of the ignorant dribblings you have posted here. They'll go away when you stop being an imbecile!
 
I'd be interested to know how old woods is as he hasn't put it in his profile.
God help us if he's over 14 - And to our Brit friends reading this - please be advised that most Americans aren't really this stupid unless they have some kind of advanced brain damage or been dropped on their head as a small child. In our friend's case I think its both.
 
Woods - if you're going to make bold claims, you need to back them up, rather than just state them. You need more than a quote. Put forth irrefutable evidence of FDR's communist credentials - through policies and actions of his administration.

Bear in mind socialism, nor the communist approach to acheiving socialism, is not inherently evil by any means. Several nations throughout the world have instituted social reform with success. Communists historically believed that socialist reform within the liberal democratic state was impossible, and sought another way to bring about socialist reform (whether through armed insurrection or participating in parliamentary politics while advocating the destruction of the capitalist state). There lies the threat that many saw to the capitalist state from communists.

This is beyond the scope of the thread - but Woods doesn't seem to fully grasp the rhetoric that he posts in this thread and others. Give substantiation.
 
God help us if he's over 14 - And to our Brit friends reading this - please be advised that most Americans aren't really this stupid unless they have some kind of advanced brain damage or been dropped on their head as a small child. In our friend's case I think its both.

Its Ok Joe we have our fair share numb nuckers.
 
Woods you have just stirred up a bunch of snakes....
I did the same thing....See page 20 of what do you think of our current president... Just... if you are going to say something back it up if you don't know ask questions the guys are always ready to answer intelligent questions with intelligent answers...
Reguards
The Aussie
 
OK...By your responses, If a pot were a brain,you PC fellows wouldn't have one to pee in.I answered your questions and got this BS in return.Now it's your turn. Prove ME wrong. You can't. So....crap abounds on this forum.
You come around with messing with my avatar and yet somebody objects to my reference to 'comic books'? Wow. Kinda 'clicky' you fellows are. As long as we all get alongthough ,huh? Disagree and...well we see.Hypocrites to boot. Proud you all must be of your superior....intellect? And hey..any Canadians here? Ask your British friends about 'Dieppe'. A massacre to say the least. The bulk were Canadians. Cannon fodder to appease Uncle Joe. (a Commie?)
I guess I can understand how you fellows stick togeather. With all of the thousands of posts for just ONE member..:( Ya got a life? And the boy who lives in Germany,get rid of your picture of the Me-109 and the pilot. You do him and your ancesters(especially WW2) a dis-service.
Try being proud for a change. Eh..you have no idea anyway. Well....kick me off as you would be one of those to jump at the chance.

As Gomer Pyle would say...Well golllllllyyyy..dumb me down.:shock: :kisses:
 
Geez man - you made comments and didn't back them up... then you tell people to prove you wrong when you haven't even substantiated your comments?
 
Why did you ban him so quick?

I wanted to see what deradler had to say.

:lol:

besides, we could have had a lot of fun at his expense.

I agree... he was fun...

It was pretty darn funny that he thought the U.S. bailed England out of the Falklands-Malivinas with air support.

I like his avatar!

... are u sure u dont want to start a "Hall of Shame"?
 
I have a hard time choosing between Churchill, FDR and Truman.

Maybe Churchill, but by a tiny margin.

I know you need hitler on the list, but even from a purely military point of view, the man was a disaster. ALL his successes that succeeded "in spite of his Generals" were things that should have failed, but succeeded only because of the quality of those Generals and the men they led into battle (and in some case, were helped along by opponents that were dumber than anyone had a right to hope for....)
 
Close but I go for Roosevelt over Churchill. Churchill was a great orator (with great speech writers behind him) and excelled at persuading the US to give support at a very touch and go time, he was also a great wit.
Monty said to him once " I don't smoke I don't drink I'm 100% fit" Churchill replied "well I do smoke I do drink I'm 200% fit".
The problem I feel is that Churchill had a habit of getting involved in military tactics and as a military leader he was poor.

On the other hand I feel Roosevelt had to fight a senate that contained a large number of Isolationists during the early stages of the war yet despite his very poor health he battled away and lead from the front, his conviction was total and his support and confidence in his armed forces unsurpassed. He worked tirelessly in pushing through legislation and before the first bomb had landed in Hawaii the country was getting geared up for war.
I vote him the greatest leader of WW2 .

Very astute observations, Trackend, and it was perhaps the ghost of "Gallipoli" haunting him that prevented him meddling even more. The British Chiefs of Staff realized that he was wary of overuling them, for if things went badly Churchill's neck was on the line. And our Aussie mates are not wrong when the think that Australia "got the shaft" in WWII, to some extent they did. (Canada shares some blame for that too...)

On the other hand, he had the chance to take the easy road for Britain, a truce with Hitler, after France fell, he absolutely refused. Doing what was "right" was more important than doing what was "safe". Makes you wonder about some of today's US political leaders claiming that they would do "whatever it takes" to keep US "safe". Would they have the courage to take on Hitler, even if it made them less "safe"?

Churchill, with all his flaws, a Great man.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back