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

"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. " Churchill constructed tanks, Stalin constructed tanks, Hitler constructed tanks. Churchill constructed planes, Stalin constructed planes, Hitler constructed planes. The only difference is that you claim that Churchill began building planes and tanks first. Britain constructed tanks and planes first. Germany exploited the abilities of the tank and planes the most. Russia built the most tanks and planes. You simply claim that since Churchill ordered tanks and planes built first that this supports your argument about Churchill being more influential. And Hitler never really fought a war on two fronts until 1944, 11 months before the end of the war. I do not count Africa and Italy as a second front, they were more like minor conflicts compared to the eastern front. Germany sent most of their men to the east until the allies invaded France. You seem to have found some quotes to support your case on Britain playing a major role in defeating Germany. However Ribbentrop says otherwise. Ribbentrop claims that the three main reasons for Germany's defeat were: Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union. The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement. The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... And out of those three reasons, Britain played an important role in only one, the struggle for air supremacy. The US did more during the bombings of Germany than Britain. In addition to this, Britain would not survived had America not sent supplies during 1940 and 1941 to help Britain. Britain never had more than 40 divisions. . http://www.world-war-2.info... I would rate the role of Britain in defeating Germany at 5-6%. "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. " Most people don't know much about Hitler either besides the fact that he was the leader of Germany and killed Jews. Most people don't know much about Churchill besides the fact that he was the leader of Britain. 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. "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. " By "lost" I meant that Britain and France "lost" (killed/captured by Germany) 2.2 million men in France. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "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" In the end, Hitler and his allies would have defeated Britain, sooner or later. Hitler ordered Operation Sealion to be postponed indefinitely on September 17, 1940 although the invasion could have gone alone: the only question would be whether it would succeed. Germany definitely had the numbers even though the RAF had not been destroyed so it stood a good chance of a successful invasion. . http://en.wikipedia.org... However Hitler postponed Sealion indefinitely for several reasons. 1)The invasion of Britain would result in heavy losses for Germany. 2)Hitler believed that Britain was already defeated and would collapse within a matter of time; German submarines he believed would starve England soon. 3)Hitler believed that Britain's only hope of surviving was the USA and Russia. America was a country led by "blacks and Jews". Russia on the other hand had invaded parts of Romania and was 100 miles away from Germany's only supply of oil. So Hitler believed that with the successful defeat of Russia, the war would be won. So instead of sending 4 million men to finish off Britain in Africa and later invade Britain, Hitler ordered those 4 million men to prepare for Operation Barbarossa. This is an example of the way Stalin and Stalin's decisions saved Britain and possibly the world. "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. " Did Churchill ever hire those generals again? Churchill firing his generals is influential because it helped Britain win the war. Stalin purging his generals is also just as influential because it resulted in the failed Soviet invasion of Finland and Germany almost completely destroying the Soviet Union. '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. "' Hitler said that, however Hitler never acted that way. He believed that the war could still be won even after the Soviets and Western Allies were at the gates of Berlin. Churchil said that, however it was definitely not true. Was the Battle of Britain not a British victory? Was Operation Compass not a British victory? . http://en.wikipedia.org... I would say that both the Battle of Britain and Operation Compass were larger victories than the Battle of El Alamein. "Agreed, but he would not have needed to capture Stalingrad. " Hitler never needed to capture Stalingrad, he only needed the oil-fields. Hitler only decided to try taking Stalingrad because it was the "city of Stalin", capturing the city would be a great political victory for Hitler. "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. " And Stalin's Eastern Front shaped the globe. There are conflicts everywhere in the world and there are many of them. Conclusion: Anyway I am reaching max characters so I will conclude here. Stalin influenced the shape of the globe. Churchill influenced a few colonies. Churchill helped develop the first tanks and planes. Stalin built some of the best tanks and planes, most powerful, and in the largest numbers. Stalin built the largest army in history and his decisions, both correct and incorrect ones were decisive in WWII.