Blog powered by Typepad

« Death where is thy sting ... ouch! | Main | New Year Irresolutions! »

Wednesday, 20 December 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

So many candidates....

Hitler wins because he thought invading Russia was a good idea. If we move away from military matters then the president of Turkmenistan wins

Yeeeeees, Hitler was pretty stupid but he did get within a whisker of taking Moscow, and if he had succeeded and then thrust into the Caucasus in the Spring, Stalin must surely have been overthrown.

"the president of Turkmenistan". Who he? And why? And remember we are talking 20th century here!

By the way, and really I'm not trying to be rude, but your site is unreadable with all those peculiar hieroglyphics. Is there no way you can clean it up? I could then come over to you for a change and save you the journey!

""the president of Turkmenistan". Who he? And why? "

And with excellent timing he snuffs it, thus ensuring a choice of several obituaries in today's press.

This one never really got going, did it David?

I imagine you hoped a lot of outraged lefties would show up defending Stalin's honour - since it'll make your day, here's my stab.

I'd be inclined to agree, if Stalin hadn't won World War Two almost single-handed.

Let's not forget, despite the twaddle the Brits and the Yanks talk about WWII, it was basically Hitler vs Stalin. Stalin's horrifying totalitarian state was more ruthless, hence, he won.

Gulling the Yanks into funding his war machine wasn't a bad move, it must be said.

The stupidest statesman of the twentieth century was undeniably Hitler. Only a cretin starts a land war in Russia.

Incidentally, Mussolini beat the pair of them hands down for pig-ignorant idiocy, but the consequences for Italy weren't as terrible.

Now, repeat after me Duff - nobody likes Stalin.

Nobody likes Stalin.

Are you getting the idea? Nobody. Likes. Stalin.

The sooner you get that through your thick head, the better you'll do debating your Commie foes.

'Ratty', you are in danger of becoming as suspicious and paranoid as, er, well, Joseph Stalin! My post had absolutely *nothing* to do with Stalin's politics and, in this day and age, I certainly did not expect any Lefties to come out in his defence because, with the possible exception of the antediluvian prof. Hobsbawm, the facts of his regime are now too obvious (as they always were to those with common-sense!) and too embarrassing for today's Left to wish to be associated with - although that certainly did *not* apply to your political father and grandfather! Not, mind you, that the Left have suddenly discovered their missing brains, because even now they 'analyse' Soviet history and blame the death of zillions on one man and his failure to apply *true* Marxism. In other words, they still do not grasp the simple idea that totalitarian rule is *inherent* in Marxism. If you refuse to believe that, then point to a single Marxist country then, or now, in which freedom flourishes.

Back to the point. My post was simply a musing on who, of the many candidates from *all* political persuasions, was the stupidest Statesman of the 20th century. You are right that Hitler comes near the top but he took chances on future actions whose outcomes were speculative and, indeed, most times he was *right*, even in the attack on Russia, he got within a whisker of taking Moscow. But Stalin had all the information concerning German intentions, confirmed several times over from a variety of sources, including his *own* 'Red Orchestra' who were relaying German High Command decisions to his desk within 10 hours! And he refused to take a single precautionary move. If that ain't stupid, I'm a genius!

The comments to this entry are closed.