Stalin was the most influential leader of the 20th century (meaning he effected the world the most).

Well there should be like 10 times as many results for Battle of Stalingrad as there would be for Normandy Invasion. We agree that the Battle of Stalingrad was the Second World War's turning point. Perhaps it highlights the influence of Western democracies like the UK and the US that google results don't reflect the importance of Stalingrad, and by extension, the influence of Western leaders like Churchill. Churchill, after all, wrote an important history of the Second World War for which he won the Nobel Prize. History is written by the victors. The USSR, the US, and the UK were victors after WWII, but the USSR lost the Cold War. Would the USSR been more enduring without the apocalyptic policies of Stalin? The answer is at least possibly yes. Who cares if Churchill was responsible for the construction of tanks or if he refused to give in to Germany in WWII? History cares. History is very interested in the influence of tanks on 20th Century warfare, even if Pro is not. History notes that Hitler's biggest error was fighting a war on two fronts and Churchill gets the lion share of the credit for maintaining one arm of that vise. The fact remains that Churchill never did much to effect the actual outcome of those wars. The New York Times would beg to differ: "He was the linchpin of the Grand Alliance of 26 nations that vanquished the Axis powers in 1945 after nearly six years of war. "The Queen of England would beg to differ:"the survival of this country and the sister nations of the Commonwealth, in the face of the greatest danger that has ever threatened them, will be a perpetual memorial to his leadership."Hitler would beg to differ: In May 1941, there was a significant decline in the German air raids on Great Britain, because the bombers were needed in the East. The Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union six weeks later. What a compliment! Hitler believed that it was easier to conquer Moscow instead of London. Shortly before his demise in 1945, Hitler complained that Churchill was the "real father of this war." https://www.google.com... many people don't see Stalin as being important because they don't know much about him. Another important aspect of influence. Although people can be influenced by someone they've never heard of (Freud's influence on Pro, for example), influence is substantially increased when people feel compelled to learn about a figure. Pro's argument continues to crumble. As a matter of fact, Britain and France lost 2.2 million soldiers in France alone. Looks like Pro is quoting WWI casualty figures. Total British losses including colonies in all campaigns during the Second World War are estimated at 450,000. http://en.wikipedia.org... the reason Britain survived was not because Churchill successfully evacuated 300,000 men at Dunkirk, but because Hitler made the mistake of switching from bombing RAF airfields when Britain was down to its last breath and would have lost in the Battle of Britain to bombing cities. In this case, I say that Hitler played the influential role. Britain's fate was decided by Hitler's choices, not Churchill's. Which is just another way of saying that the RAF, invented by Churchill in WWI, commanded by Churchill in WWII, successfully defended Britain. Don't forget about Britain's formidable Navy, also modernized and commanded by Sir Winston. That said, the loss of Dunkirk would probably have been meant the UK's acquiescence. Ian Kershaw, one of the foremost authorities on Hitler and the Third Reich, expects that the UK would have sued for peace if the men at Dunkirk had been taken. He believes that Hitler's first condition would have been the resignation of Churchill:http://www.laphamsquarterly.org... Churchill fired generals, Stalin purged them. I would say that Stalin purging 8 of his best marshals and replacing them with political personnel he could trust before WWII even began was more influential in the war because this decision almost lost Russia the war. Point for Mr. Churchill then, wouldn't you say? Firing generals rather than slaughtering them is clearly the more influential choice. Yes, killing a man is one kind of influence. But preserving a man and using his achievements to forward your goals is at once more difficult and more effective. Hitler was already fighting at Stalingrad and in the Caucuses at the same time that the battle of El Alamein was going on. Hitler would still have attacked Stalingrad even if he did not capture the Middle Eastern oil fields because he wanted the wipe the city of Stalin of the face of the earth; it would have been a political victory, but not a strategic victory. El Alamein began on July 1st; Stalingrad on Aug 23rd. The British won El Alamein on Nov. 11, Paulus surrendered at Stalingrad on Jan 31, 1943. We can agree that Hitler's focus on occupying Stalingrad was disproportional to its importance for any oil transport from the Caucasus. However, by the Summer of '42, oil was Germany's Achilles heel. Hitler had two roads to oil- take the Middle East or the Caucasus. Hitler hoped that the Rommel would meet List in Persia by the end of the summer. If Rommel had taken the Suez, Germany could have reinforced Army Group B at Stalingrad with Army Group A who was racing south to secure the oil fields before winter. Yes, Hitler could have and should have withdrawn from the stalemate of Stalingrad, but Stalingrad was the narrow point between the Don and Volga rivers. Giving up Stalingrad meant withdrawing behind the Don, which meant cutting off the Caucasus for another winter. As Hitler said after El Alamein, "If I do not get the oil of Maikop and Grozny then I must finish this war." Churchill put it better: " Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein, we never had a defeat." http://upload.wikimedia.org...; /> Without Churchill, Hitler would still have wanted to capture Stalingrad. Agreed, but he would not have needed to capture Stalingrad. [the Gulf War, the Iraq War, 4 Arab-Israeli wars, 3 India-Pakistan wars, etc.] were more like minor engagements than what happened on the eastern front. Pro misses the point. At issue here is lasting influence. Long after Churchill and Stalin are dead, many wars are still fought over lines that Churchill drew, nationalities that Churchill defined. The same cannot be said of Stalin, except perhaps for the Chechen uprising. Still, Stalin was the dictator of the USSR for 28 years while Churchill was Prime Minister for only 9 years. I have already demonstrated that Churchill was the most potent force in British politics for 55 years, in and out of office, in and out of favor. Stalin only died from stroke, rat poison never played a role in Stalin's death. Lavrentiy Beria was a coward who never questioned Stalin's orders. We may never know for certain, but the Beria rat poison theory continues to gain momentum:http://www.nytimes.com...According to Kruschev, Beria boasted of the murder 2 months after Stalin's death. Stalin was also surrounded by Communist friends even though he did kill some of them. Stalin's influence was so strong that he made the millions of people who was not being sent to the gulag or starved to death think that he was their friend. Stalin had no friends at the end. A man with his hand on the nuclear trigger, but not one person dared to check up on him for 14 hours. The fear and genocide of dictators is a kind of influence, but they lack the enduring influence of intellectual and inspirational achievement.Out of space! I'll address Pro's summation in my closing argument.