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

How many results you find on google doesn't say anything.Like I said, hardly conclusive. However, I find the results more compelling than Pro. We can agree that a Google search might reflect English language bias, Western Bias, corporate bias, etc. but we cannot simply dismiss those biases as unrepresentative of influence in the 20th century. English was the language of influence in the second half of the 20th century, Western democracies were the most influential states, Capitalism the most influential economic model. We can agree that the model contains biases and still find the results instructive. The reason you got lopsided results for D-day is because google is including results for the letter D and the word day. If you give each battle its proper name: the Invasion of Normandy and the Battle of Stalingrad, you get more balanced results:5,550,000 results vs. 5,630,000 results which still reflects Western bias but the Battle of Stalingrad gets the edge it deserves. Also, many people don"t really see Stalin as being of any importance.Interesting statement and one that deeply undermines your argument. How can Stalin be the MOST influential leader of the 20th Century, but many people don't see Stalin as being of any importance. By definition, a MOST influential leader must be considered of great importance to most people. Since many people don't think Stalin had any importance, he does not qualify as MOST influential. [Churchill] did not actually "build" the British Empire. Quite the opposite. More than any person, Churchill dismantled the British Empire, the single most important political state of the 19th Century. The choices Churchill made and the methods he used in that dismantling gave the 20th Century its shape.[Churchill} played an important role in WWI and WWII; however he had no effect on the outcome of these wars. Hmmm...Churchill is credited with inventing the tank and establishing the first air force. Are you saying that tanks and air forces had no effect on the outcome of WWI and WWII? Of course you aren't. Churchill provided the casus belli for the Ottoman Empire to enter the war on the Axis side during WWI. The implosion of the Middle east was an important outcome of WWI for which Churchill gets credit as both the cause of implosion and the arbiter of the resulting spoils of war. It might be overstatement to say that Britain would certainly have fallen without Churchill. However, it would not be overstatement to say that without Churchill there would be no Dunkirk. By sending a few thousand British soldiers on a suicide feint into Holland, Churchill bought time in which he could evacuate the core of the English army. If England had lost 300,000 soldiers in the opening months of the war, the possibility of invading England might have been irresistible. Without Churchill, there would be no strong English resistance in Egypt. Churchill famously flew to Cairo and fired the generals who wished to wage a defensive war in Egypt. British build up forced Rommel to attack and collapse at the Second Battle of El Alamein. Without El Alamein, Hitler would have cut off the Commonwealth, owned the Suez and created his route to Middle East oil. Therefore, Hitler would have no need to take Stalingrad or split off divisions into the Caucasus. Without Churchill, there would be no Stalingrad. Without Churchill, there would be no Battle of Kursk. I expect Russia would probably have survived even without these victories, but the outcome of the war is less certain. You completely miss out on several negative aspects of Churchill"s influence. He was responsible for prolonging WWII and the destruction of the British Empire.In fact, I consider much of Churchill's influence negative. Tanks and air forces are generally negative artifacts. Gallipoli is an appalling mistake. Forcing Israel into being in the Middle East has had lasting and terrible consequences world-wide. Churchill gets a big chunk of the blame for the Gulf War, the Iraq War, 4 Arab-Israeli wars, 3 India-Pakistan wars, etc. Negative influence is still influence. If we discount any of Stalin's influences that might be considered negative, we are left with no legacy at all. At least Churchill also began the first minimum wage and universal health insurance programs. At least Churchill also brokered peace treaties and peaceful solutions to many anti-colonial national independence movements. At least Churchill also authored great books and documented his perspective for history. If we remove paranoid violence from Stalin's legacy, we are left with a hole- virtually no legacy at all. After Germany defeated France, they offered to make peace with Britain, yet Churchill refused to do so. Considering Hitler's track record in maintaining peace treaties, Churchill's decision was the correct one for the preservation of England.Churchill"s influence was not strong enough to make the people of Britain vote for him to continue being prime minister. Churchill had to win 14 General Elections in order to maintain his 50 years in office; no small feat. Pro seems unaware that Churchill was elected to a second term as Prime Minister in 1951-55. Put another way, Churchill was a Member of Parliament carving up empires when Stalin was still a kid failing at Seminary school. Churchill was still a member of Parliament, still carving up empires for years after Stalin's death in 1953.On the other hand, most of the people of the USSR would probably have voted for Stalin if the same thing ever happened in the Soviet Union.Stalin said: "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes." When the Soviets stood for election in 1937, they arrested all opposition members in two waves just before the election. Results? The Communist party were re-elected with 99.3% of the vote. If Stalin had wanted to find out how he might fare in a democratic election, he had several opportunities. Instead he arrested and/or killed any candidates who opposed him. By all accounts, Stalin was a uniquely uncharismatic man, and would not likely have maintained power in any democratic context.Stalin played a more influential role in the outcome of WWII than Churchill ever did since most of the German forces were defeated on the eastern front.The point of influence is debatable. There is no debating that Russians bore the major burdens of WWII and that Stalingrad and Kursk were the turning points of the war. If we were debating which leader won WWII, Pro might have a better chance here. However, we are debating most influential 20th Century figure. Both Stalin and Churchill were major victors of WWII. Both were architects of the Cold War. But Churchill was also a victor in WWI. And Churchill was also an architect of WWII, in as much as his policies guaranteed Japanese expansion, American involvement, German confinement. And Churchill was also an architect of all Middle Eastern politics since WWI. And Churchill was also an architect of the post-colonial emergence of Africa and Asia. And Churchill was also an architect of 20th Century liberal social policy. Here's one measure of the difference in influence. Stalin died of a stroke in 1953, probably after ingesting rat poison provided by Lavrentiy Beria. His death was slow and probably preventable. He lay in a puddle of his own urine for a full day before anybody had the courage to enter his bedchambers and find out why he had not emerged. It took another twelve hours to find a doctor willing to take the political risk of examining Stalin. Once Kruschev emerged as the new Premier, he immediately began a process of de-Stalinization since clearly a correction was needed.A legacy of fear and violence is unpleasant to behold.Unlike Stalin, Churchill was surrounded by friends and family at his death. Churchill received the largest state funeral in history. Unlike Stalin, Churchill's legacy and laurels increased rather than decreased after his death. No correction was required.