Greatest Person of the twentieth century
- Thread starter Feelie
- Start date
there have been far too many people in the world that are great to pick one. but just off the top of my head i would say tunsty.
member2686
Banned
Aside from the many, many, many other worthy candidates, I have to go with people like Thomas Edison (who lived and invented into the 20th century, so he qualifies) and Einstein, as well as Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Roosevelt, Churchill, Kennedy, MLK Jr., Rosa Parks, and the Wright Brothers. Stephen Hawking is brilliant as well.
That's just a sampling. Imagine where we'd be without those people today, though. We might be 5-50 years behind where we are....or maybe we already ARE and they just finally came about...hmmmm... :dunno: :nanner: :glugglug: :hatsoff:
That's just a sampling. Imagine where we'd be without those people today, though. We might be 5-50 years behind where we are....or maybe we already ARE and they just finally came about...hmmmm... :dunno: :nanner: :glugglug: :hatsoff:
I think Michail Gorbatshov: he was one of the main reasons why the reunification of Germany and the fall of the Berlin wall took place without any violence!!
Furthermore, Woodrow Wilson: he had after WWI already the idea to install the "League of Nations". But unfortunately the US did not participate, as the senate did not ratify the treaty.
Yithzak Rabin: with him we would have peace in the Middle East now
Nelson Mandela: he can inspire a whole generation
Winston Churchill: great statesman but sometimes also very radical
Furthermore, Woodrow Wilson: he had after WWI already the idea to install the "League of Nations". But unfortunately the US did not participate, as the senate did not ratify the treaty.
Yithzak Rabin: with him we would have peace in the Middle East now
Nelson Mandela: he can inspire a whole generation
Winston Churchill: great statesman but sometimes also very radical
icerfanpsu said:FYI, Gore was being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN in March 1999, and uttered the now infamous line, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/
Those two might have created it. But if it wasen't for the United States military (imo) it would not have been as popular as it was as fast as it was.
They were it's first big customers.
I think.
daschok said:
Woodrow WIlson was (imo) rascist with a capital R. I understand the pic. And he did some good things. But anyone who belittles others on such a trivial basis CAN NOT be truly great in my book.
But the fact that he was racist is kind of glossed over by the history books.
Nightfly said:
Some of your pics I agree with but...
Thomas Edison was a cokehead and a dickhead (from what I read). He had teams of people working under him. And when one of them came up with a new invention - he often took the credit for it himself - or so I read/heard.
Bill Gates, imo, wanted to turn the world computer market into one giant Microsoft company (more or less). And the courts - more or less - proved it. And his reputation is for being an INCREDIBLE tightwad apparently. People like Bill Gates have to be kept in check or they get WAY too greedy - to the detriment of all except himself, pretty much.
However, he did give hundreds of millions to African charities. So maybe he is coming around. Or maybe he just wanted a tax right off.
Henry Ford was another tyrant. And contrary to popular belief - he did NOT invent the production line. He merely took it to a vast scale.
Read about this guy sometime. He was a nut.
A great technical fellow. Some great business ideas (the $5/day pay - though then he was TOTALLY against unions of any kind). But a nut.
The Wright Brothers. There is still some substantial conjecture as to whether they actually got their plane off of the ground first. Many others came to similar conclusions as they did around that time about powered flight. They just (possibly) beat them to it.
I think they just worked harder and longer on it then anyone else.
They had some good ideas about powered flight. But their wing warping idea (which was on the first Wright Flyer) was a complete waste of time. And it was later dumped.
I am just picking on your 'picks' because I figure you can take a little criticism. If I pick on the George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan picking people - I feel a verbal blood bath could ensue. LOL
Actually, Ronald Reagan's administration deliberately set out to bankrupt Soviet Communism - and that is exactly what it did. They brought down the Iron Curtain - peacefully. That has got to be worth alot of credit.
I just think personallly he was a bit - weird.
According to Pierre Trudeau (former Canadian Prime Minister) Reagan was a nice enough fellow but thought that Communists were under the bed. In other words - rather paranoid.
And GWB's administration is just a mess. A BIG MESS.
I guess my picks would be the guy that created penicilin (many of you might be dead if he had not - I believe I would definitely be). And Martin Luther King Jr..
Last edited:
another thought-provoking thread...glad i had a good nite's sleep so i'm thinking more clearly than i usually am (which still aint that clearly).
ok...first i have to state my criteria for being considered: this person will have to have impacted the greatest number of people, having left them better off had that person not taken the action(s) they did. this does not assume that someone else would have done what they did, merely gives credit to the person in history who did.
i've seen lots of very good suggestions, and i'm not sure that one person can really hold this distinction...but looking at the 20th century in retrospect, the single most significant event was world war 2. the world as we know it was defined by the outcome of that war, and what was done to "win" it as well as the decisions made immediately after it's conclusion. had things turned out even slightly different, we could be living in an entirely different world.
having said all that, i have to say that two people get my nod, fdr & churchill. granted, there were many individuals who did much to ensure the allied victory, however i think that these two managed to ensure that england did not fall (despite the rapid fall of all of it's allies), and that the united states would enter the war (despite the population being overwhelmingly isolationist).
just my thoughts...feel free to shoot holes in my choices, i look forward to hearing some more debate on this topic.
ok...first i have to state my criteria for being considered: this person will have to have impacted the greatest number of people, having left them better off had that person not taken the action(s) they did. this does not assume that someone else would have done what they did, merely gives credit to the person in history who did.
i've seen lots of very good suggestions, and i'm not sure that one person can really hold this distinction...but looking at the 20th century in retrospect, the single most significant event was world war 2. the world as we know it was defined by the outcome of that war, and what was done to "win" it as well as the decisions made immediately after it's conclusion. had things turned out even slightly different, we could be living in an entirely different world.
having said all that, i have to say that two people get my nod, fdr & churchill. granted, there were many individuals who did much to ensure the allied victory, however i think that these two managed to ensure that england did not fall (despite the rapid fall of all of it's allies), and that the united states would enter the war (despite the population being overwhelmingly isolationist).
just my thoughts...feel free to shoot holes in my choices, i look forward to hearing some more debate on this topic.
spiceworld
Banned
Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons !
om3ga
It's good to be the king...
iputinwork said:
Good points - my only (minor) quibble is that WW1 is as equally significant as WW2. After WW1, nobody cheered anymore when war was decleared. War was detested so much that the policy of appeasment was considered acceptable.
Also the crippling war reparations from the Treaty of Versailles helped set in motion events leading to the rise of Nazism (and ultimately, WW2).
Churchill is a cert as the greatest Briton. He had his faults (re: his opposition towards the granting of independence to India and his controversial claim that Benito Mussolini's Fascism had "rendered a service to the whole world," because it showed "a way to combat subversive forces" — re: the perceived threat of Communist revolution. Also during the General Strike of 1926, Churchill was reported to have suggested that machine guns be used on striking miners).
But cometh the hour, cometh the man. His passion in warning the world about the rise of Hitler, his fight against Nazism, and warning the world about the rise of the "Iron Curtain".
FDR is also a good choice - as Churchill was in the right place for Great Britain when he was needed. So FDR was in the right place for the US during the depression. While Roosevelt is accused of being naively trusting Stalin, it could be countered that he believed that Soviet support was required when the invasion of Japan took place.
I think that the oratory skills of both Churchill & FDR was significant. I couldn't envisage anyone else but Churchill stating "We shall fight them on the beaches, etc" - equally I can't imagine anyone else but FDR stating that "you have nothing to fear, but fear itself".
Okay. Well if we are taking it this way..which is fine by me. Then it would have to be WW1 was better then WW2. WW2 kind of made things more messy for a while. The cold war followed almost right after.
After WW1 many good things happened. It was basically the last major hurrah for monarchies. Many democracies and countries were created after WW1.
So, by that standard. The greatest person in the twentieth century;
or the person that affected the twentieth century the most was the guy (Gavrilo Princip) that shot Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 which put in motion the treaties that started WW1.
It's a BIG stretch, I know. But it is different.
Gavrilo Princip - the single man more then any other that dictated the course of the twentieth century.
After WW1 many good things happened. It was basically the last major hurrah for monarchies. Many democracies and countries were created after WW1.
So, by that standard. The greatest person in the twentieth century;
or the person that affected the twentieth century the most was the guy (Gavrilo Princip) that shot Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 which put in motion the treaties that started WW1.
It's a BIG stretch, I know. But it is different.
Gavrilo Princip - the single man more then any other that dictated the course of the twentieth century.
Last edited:
mcrocket said:Okay. Well if we are taking it this way..which is fine by me. Then it would have to be WW1 was better then WW2. WW2 kind of made things more messy for a while. The cold war followed almost right after.
After WW1 many good things happened. It was basically the last major hurrah for monarchies. Many democracies and countries were created after WW1.
So, by that standard. The greatest person in the twentieth century;
or the person that affected the twentieth century the most was the guy (Gavrilo Princip) that shot Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 which put in motion the treaties that started WW1.
It's a BIG stretch, I know. But it is different.
Gavrilo Princip - the single man more then any other that dictated the course of the twentieth century.
actually...u make good points that i considered while making my choice.
i considered ww1 as being the most significant, however, since it resolved nothing and the outcome actually LED to ww2, i stuck with ww2 as being more significant. also, considering the fact that ww1 was almost entirely limited to europe as well as the fact that ww2 impacted every continent and nation on earth, directly or indirectly, it was far more significant than the number of lives lost.
also, the balance of world power shifted only slightly at the conclusion of ww1, with germany losing it's prestige but the world power rankings remained pretty much the same. the conclusion of ww2 changed the world more drastically than any other single event since the fall of rome. the major powers of the previous 3 centuries (the uk, france and germany) were supplanted by the us and the soviet union. japan, which was attempting to become a world power, eventually became an economic power. china, almost completely isolated prior to ww2, began a 50 year rise to world prominence.
collectively, a much more drastic outcome than ww1, therefore the the major players in this conflict would shape the world long after they've been dead and buried. but in the near term, had they not succeeded we could be living in a world that had been shaped by hitler, mussolini, and stalin.
just some thoughts...but an interesting point of view mcrocket...
sjs1220 said:
With the exception of Pope John Paul II, no one was more responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan defeated communism and brought more freedom to more of the world than anyone ever.
Likewise, with the exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt, no one had more impact on defeating Hitler than Churchill.
Those would be my 4 nominees...Reagan, Churchill, Roosevelt and John Paul II.
Of those...my clear winner is Ronald Reagan.
wlfman812 said:
wow...very interesting point of view considering that in 1941 all of europe except england (not just eastern europe and half of germany), most of asia (including china), and the mediterranean (including northern africa) had been "annexed" by the axis powers.
kind of like comparing the difference between renovating a house all at one time vs gradually over the years...the west vs communism conflict lasted over 40 years...ww2 lasted less than 8 and churchill/roosevelt were major players almost throughout (churchill came to power after the war started). to say that reagan was THE major player in that conflict is short-sighted to say the least, especially when three other presidents presided over wars during that time period (ike/korea, lbj&nixon/vietnam). additionally, you have to take into account the fact that shortly before the "fall of communism", the soviet union ended it's 10-year conflict in afghanistan...
not to discount your opinion, i just find it hard to agree with given the historical facts of the 20th century.
member2686
Banned
Ronald Reagan is given SO much credit for things he couldn't even comprehend. Like HE ended the Cold War. Like HE had this brilliant vision for the E.U., for Europe post-Communism. Like HE had a clue about how to handle European immigration and racism after the Berlin Wall was ripped down (as if HE had a major role in actually making THAT happen, either, save "calling out" Gorbachev to "tear down this wall"). It's ludicrous, but to so many (older or conservative) people in the USA, Ronald Reagan is like sliced bread, the microwave oven, and the gasoline engine -- the end-all and be-all of all modernity who saved us from our primitive ways. It's a sack of snake crap, if you ask me, and it's deluded at best. :2 cents:
Reagan - the greatest person of the 20th Century? I think not. HE didn't either. Not at all. :2 cents: But, he WAS a nice man. I liked him as a kid, growing up, but not as a President.
Reagan - the greatest person of the 20th Century? I think not. HE didn't either. Not at all. :2 cents: But, he WAS a nice man. I liked him as a kid, growing up, but not as a President.
wlfman812 said:
Actually, Stalin had far more impact on defeating Hitler then Churchill. Without Russia and/or the United States; Churchill could have made all the 'our finest hour' speeches he wanted. Great Britian could not have defeated Nazi Germany one on one. Conventionally anyway.
Maybe you meant of all the decent people.
Similar threads
