History is written by victors?

[Jana]

Was thinking about this and decided to nominate Franjo Tuđman as great leader in our Croatian reality.

Some reasons why:

Without Tuđman, there wouldn't be modern Croatia. Seemingly at that moment he was only man capable to create a country and lead it in it's hardest hour, when most of world didn't want to bless dissolution of Yugoslavia and we got embargo on weapons import. He was only man capable to unite Croatia with war on our doors.

He was a communist general and WW2 partisan combatant with good record, but later reformed Croatian nationalist. As professional historian he was well educated about our history and political as well as cultural realities of Europe unlike many other leaders. His biggest success and biggest trouble was that he somehow, miraculousy, menaged to make peace between sons of Ustashe and sons of Yugoslav partisans in their mission to create Croatian state.

It was incredibly difficult because unlike current Ukrainian reality, absolutely no relevant power at first supported indipendent Croatia. We were disarmed and with weapons import ban and absolutely no one gave us chance to win against back than nominaly third most powerful military force in Europe.

He came out victorious. Broke Serb rebellion, consolidated the country, gained international recognition, built powerful military from scratch, invited Croatian diaspora to rebuilt war torn county with their wealth and knowhow and started process of cultural deyugoslavization, reviving Croatian cultural affinities and symbols.

He wasn't without faults. Questionable involevement in Bosnia, later sanctions and international isolation, inability to control rapid stealing of resources of his party members with transition to free market gone wrong (economy wasn't his strong suit) and following collapse of industry, inablity to clean his party from ex communist and Yugoslav secret service members (he believed in "Pan Croatian peace between reds and blacks"), lack of vision when it came to joining regional alliances like Visegrad 4, where Croatia was invited.

He had some genious moments as many parts of Croatian constitution that's very simplistic and well written witness (he had influence in making it).

But overall, there was no better man to lead us during indipendance war and today we can appreciate his legacy more when we see into what cesspit and shame his party, once with state-building vision, now turned into.

From foreign leaders I'd pick Churchil as grand one especially during WW2. I know he had mistakes and failures afterwards, as any man. From current ones I would have picked Orban few years ago, but his last few years of rule greatly damaged his grade and reputation in my eyes.

I have 0% Mongoloid. Russians shouldn't believe an Australian nerd with a thin neck

you can pass for Bosniak, calm down.

[PlattitüdenPaule]

I go with Friedrich II. of Prussia. Not only did he effectively end hunger in Central Europe by properly introducing the potato, but he also abolished torture, introduced free elementary schools so everyone could at the very least afford to learn to read and write, managed to fend of the Holy Roman Empire, Austria, France and Russia without unnecessary cruelty and last but not least elevated Prussia to be the fifth superpower at that time. He truly was first and foremost a servant to his people and nation.

[Jana]

I go with Friedrich II. of Prussia. Not only did he effectively end hunger in Central Europe by properly introducing the potato, but he also abolished torture, introduced free elementary schools so everyone could at the very least afford to learn to read and write, managed to fend of the Holy Roman Empire, Austria, France and Russia without unnecessary cruelty and last but not least elevated Prussia to be the fifth superpower at that time. He truly was first and foremost a servant to his people and nation.

Great example. Example you mentioned with education reminds me of Maria Theresa, who introduced obligatory elementary schooling in Austria-Hungary, back than enlightened thing.

[Incal]

I'd say the greatest leader in the XX century was Lee Kuan Yew:



A man with an increidble insight and vision who turned a poor backward and divided former colony into one of the best and most efficient countries of the world.

[Todesritter]

I go with Friedrich II. of Prussia. Not only did he effectively end hunger in Central Europe by properly introducing the potato, but he also abolished torture, introduced free elementary schools so everyone could at the very least afford to learn to read and write, managed to fend of the Holy Roman Empire, Austria, France and Russia without unnecessary cruelty and last but not least elevated Prussia to be the fifth superpower at that time. He truly was first and foremost a servant to his people and nation.

I'd add Maria Theresa of Austria who instituted similar measures in Austria-Hungary in the same period, who reorganised the military, revitalised the imperial economy with her reforms, instituted safe practices of innoculation against smallpox and regulation of medicines sold in apothecaries, criminalising and thus ending witch-hunts, introduced free schools and mandatory school attendance for all children, and laid the foundation for the abolishment of serfdom that was later introduced by her son. All these reforms were important for bringing the Austrian empire of the time closer to western standards and significantly improved lives, and proves that absolutist monarchs are not necessarily worse than democratic ones; in fact, an absolutist monarch with good intentions and a will to reform can often bring about change far more effectively by being able to go against the dissent of the court and the populace that opposes change (some of the opposition against mandatory schooling came not from aristocrats that felt their status was threatened, but from peasants who would rather have their children work the fields).

I would also include Otto von Bismarck. His efforts in the unification of Germany and its uplifting to a global power without the need for war, and the economic and social policies including worker security, accident and sickness insurance, pensions, that helped prevent a turn to revolution, socialism/communism or liberalism. He opposed politically intruding into Balkan affairs and his diplomatic policies without dispute played a massive role in one of the longest peaceful periods in Europe. He was incredibly skilled as a politician and his policies beneficial to the people even if his measures were not introduced out of altruistic reasons.

[amiSoleil]

The question Cassie is really asking is, "What is right and what is wrong?"

[Victor]

it's more popular among Russian far right

Vulgar Neonazi simps is already a non existant category here. Most of active ones left to Ukraine or were thrown to jails during 2010s, the ones remaining are not seen. Whole ultras movement is cleansed of neonazis and lots of ultras are on the frontline or helping the frontline. The extreme opponents of neonazis, antifa, are also extinct and eliminated by state.

The only political group which has some people represented at the frontline are National-Bolsheviks. Natbol ideology is a romantic utopy for sure and most of the active NB fighters are the ones who leaned from it to essential patriotism. National-Bolshevism may be described as something similar to left wing of NSDAP ideology of Gregor Strasser, but as I've said, actual people lean from it to more realistic stuff.

[NSXD60]

History is being rewritten by Marxist wokester polititions in order to justify turning the victors into the future vanquished which is of course given a thumbs-up by the corporate communist media: ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc., et al.

[Todesritter]

The question Cassie is really asking is, "What is right and what is wrong?"

Regarding the question of 'is mass killing ever justified' and in general whether extreme measures can be exonerated morally rather than just being omitted from the broad view of history because the authors happen to be on the winning side and so their less noble deeds can be ignored, I'm personally of the opinion that yes, extreme measures undertaken for a greater good are sometimes acceptable and even necessary. The measure of what is right and wrong rests in the intention and the action both; sometimes very good things can be done without altruistic intentions, sometimes altruistic intentions aren't fruitful, and sometimes altruistic intentions and insisting on being democratic in fact gets in the way of actually instituting valuable change.

That is the case with many revolutionary absolutist rulers who brought on great reforms that ended up benefiting their countries but were initially met with dissent that needed to be crushed - sometimes extreme measures are necessary to preclude a greater good. This is what you get when an objectively more advanced culture imposes measures that are met with disagreement on a less advanced one also; one could argue about forced westernisation, but it's undeniable that it raises the standard of living as long as it's instituted. Our modern moral view is founded in a value system that is not universal or universally beneficial and often prioritizes the choice of people who aren't sufficiently well-informed to make a choice to begin with.

[Katarzyna]

I'm a Mongoloid, it's just ridiculous.

I’m 1% Inuit. So we are in the same boat.