English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In a moral sense (that justifies my posting in R&S)

2007-09-11 07:38:37 · 19 answers · asked by Bubbles 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

19 answers

In a moral sense and also in a practical sense, it had to be Churchill. When you are ruling with an iron fist, you inspire people to try to work against you to the extent possible. When you rule by persuading people they have a duty to their country, they work with you to the extent possible.

2007-09-11 07:42:56 · answer #1 · answered by auntb93 7 · 3 1

Winston Churchill

2007-09-11 15:24:58 · answer #2 · answered by Steel Rain 7 · 0 0

I would think Churchill. Stalin did some very strange things such as purging his army of the good and experienced officers which cost him a lot of men in the early stages. But he did have the advantage of good intelligence that told him that the Japanese were going to concentrate their war effort against the USA and not attack his eastern border so he was able to move his eastern army to the west to replace his lost men

2007-09-11 15:16:01 · answer #3 · answered by Maid Angela 7 · 0 0

Clearly Churchill was a strong leader who helped England through WW!!. Stalin was a former seminary student, who made the right choice to join the allied side, because he knew he couldn't trust Hitler. However, after the war, he murdered millions trying to maintain power in communism. This will always happen in communism, because it is a failed theory and really requires some form of dictatorship to work.

2007-09-11 14:44:50 · answer #4 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 2 1

when the troups and the country were in trouble chirchil was there to raise moral, when stalin was in danger he stnt troups to their death, a leader needs to give moral support and incouragement in our time of need not hide and run, as hitler did and stalin had prepared to do. chirchill may not be a perfect man but he done what was right and he was rewarded by the state for it, he may not of been a man suited to government as pm out side of war but he made the decissions and even when they were wrong stood up and took responcibility, which is more than I could say for some leaders

2007-09-11 15:18:25 · answer #5 · answered by manapaformetta 6 · 0 0

Churchill.

2007-09-12 03:42:55 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 0 0

Luke Skywalker

2007-09-12 03:47:53 · answer #7 · answered by bkk 5 · 0 0

Churchill, he lead by inspiring the British people, Stalin just made crossing him a death sentence, so people followed out of fear.

2007-09-11 14:43:26 · answer #8 · answered by momatad 4 · 3 1

In a moral sense, they both ordered the deaths of countless innocent men women and children.

Stalin was a monster whatever way you look at him, but Churchill ordered missions designed to kill German civilians and also disregarded atrocities in Eastern Europe because to rescue victims of the holocaust didn't have any military advantage.

You cannot talk about war and expect to find any morality in it.

2007-09-11 14:43:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

Stalin killed the majority of his top military before the German invasion.Do you call purging your military a smart move.Land area had more to do with the outcome of Stalin than he did.

2007-09-11 14:47:57 · answer #10 · answered by WDOUI 5 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers