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

I promised to address Pro's closing remarks in round 4, so I'll start there. For 4 rounds, the thrust of Pro's argument has been that Stalin is the principle victor of WW2, and therefore the most influential leader of the 20th Century. We can agree that the USSRs' victory in WW2 has been underplayed by the West without necessarily promoting Stalin to most influential. First, WWII was an essential event of the 20th Century, but not the only event. In terms of one war's impact on art, literature, culture, & politics I would argue that the first world war was more seminal than the second. Second, military victory is not in itself influence. We can agree that George Bush Sr.'s military victories were more significant than Ronald Reagan's without implying that Bush was the more influential. Third, Pro cannot discount Churchill in WW2 because Hitler thrust the crisis upon him while simultaneously lauding Stalin for enduring similar circumstance. In truth, Churchill gets the better part of credit in such a comparison because, unlike Stalin, Churchill did not beg to join Hitler in the Axis alliance.http://en.wikipedia.org... Churchill constructed tanks, Stalin constructed tanks...Churchill constructed planes, Stalin constructed planes... You simply claim that since Churchill ordered tanks and planes built first that this supports your argument about Churchill being more influential. Churchill invented tanks. He's the reason tanks are called "tanks". In fact, he declined the opportunity to place his name on the patent. Churchill is the military leader who said, let's put a gun and some armour on a tractor chassis and see what it can do against barbed wire. When Stalin deployed tanks he was following in Churchill's footsteps 20 years later. As an early pilot himself, Churchill was the first military leader to employ airplanes in a wide range of tactics. As first Lord of the Admiralty, he directed the construction of the first aircraft carriers, the first planes used against submarines. When Stalin deployed planes 20 years later, he was following in Churchill's footsteps. Hitler never really fought a war on two fronts until 1944. So, Pro does not count the Battle of Britain, the Battle of Norway, the Battle of the Atlantic, the Battle of the Mediterranean, the Battle of North Africa, the Invasion of Italy, the Battle of Greece, strategic bombing of the Rhine including the massive destruction in Hamburg & Cologne, Lend-Lease, espionage, and sabotage in his history of WW2. I can see why Stalin looms so large in Pro's revised history of the war, although I think any serious historian would be appalled by such a profoundly limited perspective. John Keegan, for example, cites the Battle of Greece as the turning point in the war since it forced Germany to delay Operation Barbarossa by critical weeks that allowed winter weather to prevent the fall of Leningrad and Moscow. You seem to have found some quotes to support your case on Britain playing a major role in defeating Germany.Nope, that's Pro's particular obsession. My argument is that Churchill is more influential than Stalin, so I quoted the New York Times, Queen Elizabeth II, and Adolph Hitler giving Churchill the primary credit for victory in WW2. I edited out similar credit from JFK and Reagan to save space. Churchill's influence on the Allies went far beyond Britain's military participation. I live on the west coast of the US and went to school in America. All that was ever mentioned about Churchill was that he was the leader of Britain during WWII. So although you might be able to find many websites about Churchill online, you can find few people in the world who actually know that much about Churchill and his influence. Interesting fact: There are 12 American high schools named after Winston Churchill. Roosevelt has 10. Stalin? Zero. By "lost" I meant that Britain and France "lost" (killed/captured by Germany) 2.2 million men in France. Since we discussing the achievement at Dunkirk, a highly distorting figure. By including the number for all French (especially 1.5 million French captured), Belgians, Poles, and Brits killed, wounded, or captured Pro makes it seem as if Dunkirk only salvaged 3/22nds of the British Expeditionary Force when 2 out of every 3 British soldiers were actually rescued. Of the 2.2 million number cited by Pro, only 68,000 Brits were killed, wounded, or captured (using Pro's source). This is an example of the way Stalin and Stalin's decisions saved Britain and possibly the world. Well, let's not delude ourselves regarding Stalin's intent. Stalin never saved anybody from anything. If Stalin thought he could have successfully invaded and enslaved Western Europe or China or the United States after the war, he would have done so. Stalin was every bit the bloodsoaked, power mad, conquering tyrant Hitler was, probably more. Did Churchill ever hire those generals again? In a wartime democracy? Of course. Auchinleck and his staff were re-assigned to India where they remained until Indian Independence. Hitler never needed to capture Stalingrad, he only needed the oil-fields. Pro ignores my point (and map) showing that Stalingrad controls the Don. If the Russians held Stalingrad, German forces in the Caucasus would be cut off and/or forced to withdraw behind the Don for another winter. Since Hitler knew he had to have oil before winter or lose the war, Stalingrad was a must. Pro concludes by saying: Stalin built the largest army in history and his decisions, both correct and incorrect ones were decisive in WWII. So much of this debate has had the character of Churchill vs. Stalin: who won WWII that we need to take a breath and remember the discussion at hand is whether Stalin was the most influential leader of the 20th Century. Although I have used Churchill as a foil, and that's been fun, Churchill is only one example of a leader who was more influential than Stalin: Einstein, Freud, Turing, FDR, Gandhi, MLK are a few who might make a similar claim. Unlike Stalin, Churchill's legacy continues to unfold, even today. Churchill supported Alan Turing when the British Army wouldn't, leading to the invention of the first computer. When John Kerry met with Iranian diplomats this week, Churchill's ghost was at the table because he took Iran's oil in the 1930's and helped replace Iran's president in 1953. As the U.S. rolls out Obamacare, Churchill's ghost reminds us how he funded universal health care 100 years ago. As the U.S. Government sues BP over the Gulf Spill, Churchill's ghost is in the courtroom because he assembled the small group of lords who bought Burmah oil, then gave it the Persian oil that made British Petroleum. When Stanley McChristal considers how best to restore Autonomy, he consults Churchill. Stalin's influence cannot be denied, but his influence is the legacy of many brutes: death and destruction. It does not take that much talent to be a paranoid mass murderer. Stalin was the man on top, but his role might have been played by many others. If J. Edgar Hoover been born in Russia and had a similar chance at power, would he have governed any differently? Probably not. Stalin's influence is similar to Hitler's in that both men assumed control of a small group of political radicals, took autocratic control by force and propaganda and secret police and personality cult and led their countries into hell. Only Stalin rivals Hitler in the ranks of leaders responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. Before his death, Lenin dictated his testament urging the Communist Party to reject Stalin and remove him from power, a document Stalin suppressed. As soon as Kruschev took power after Stalin's power, he led the USSR in the process of de-Stalinization. Stalin's closest political allies rejected him before he took power and rejected him again as soon as he was gone, his influence fading ever since.