This article suggests that the biographies of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Franklin Roosevelt, and Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill define the 20th century.
I disagree: I’d go for Stalin, Mao, Churchill, Hirohito, Hitler, and Thatcher, plus one or two from America, but who I do not know.
I’m excising Lenin because he wasn’t in power for long, and Stalin was a major mover behind the scenes anyway. Churchill and Thatcher cover all the 20th Century for Europe; Hitler being only necessary for the counterpoint view and could possibly be excised. Hirohito covers Japan, and Mao China. But to sum up America with just one man, who died half way through the period doesn’t seem right. I’m thinking that America needs two representatives. So who should represent America? Reagan is largely subsumed by Thatcher, so he’s out.
Really? They’re all right-wingers, albeit of very different stripes. But those three are not going to give you any sort of balanced view of 20c Europe. Two Brits is at least one too many: what does Maggie bring to your list that Churchill doesn’t?
I suggest JFK be added to that list. Kennedy was involved in civil rights, space exploration and to some extend Viet Nam. His death was part of a trifecta of tragedies in the 1960s.
Actually, Churchill was sometimes a Liberal, but politics isn’t the issue.
Churchill died in the 1960s but was active from 1900 to the late 50s. Mrs Thatcher’s period covers the European Union, the fall of the Soviet Union, the Falklands War and the rise of democracy in Argentina and South America, and the resurgence of the West.
Covered by Mrs Thatcher.
JFK was a mere blip. President for a few years who achieved very little. I’m looking for Americans who saw much of the century and were important for much of it.
Perhaps an odd choice, but what about Alistair Cooke?
In the UK, why not Queen Elizabeth II? Combined with Churchill, their active careers cover the entire century, and one hands off to the other, albeit in different roles.
In the US, I don’t think any president would fit the bill, as their slice of history is too narrow – even FDR was only around 12 years or so.
But someone like J. Edgar Hoover would be an interesting choice: he was a long term survivor of many administrations, helping shape policy from the 30s to the 70s. Others might be (say) John Kenneth Galbraith and George F. Kennan. Or heck, Henry Kissinger.
Not hardly. Gorbachev came up in an entirely different culture, and his actions precipitated the collapse of a world political alignment system that had dominated geopolitics for over forty years–and which most analysts and politicians, including Reagan and Thatcher, had expected to endure, their post-hoc triumphalism nonwithstanding. Thatcher was a sidelines player compared to Gorbachev.
I gotta go with Stalin over Lenin due to longevity and Stalin’s influence over the USSR for decades after his death.
Mao is a no-brainer, as is Hitler.
I would add Ho Chi Minh to the list, the Vietnam War was the most significant conflict between WW II and Bush’s Folly and Ho showed us that small nations can indeed stand up to and ultimately defeat superpowers.
I’d take Churchill over Thatcher in a heartbeat. Maggie may have been wildly popular with right wingers throughout the globe, but it was Churchill’s resolve that kept the UK from being conquered.
FDR more than any other American defines the 20th century, between the New Deal, WW II, and Social Security.
I would add John Paul II to the list, I think he had much more to do with the breakup of the Soviet bloc than Reagan.
My final list would be Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Ho Chi Minh, Churchill, FDR, and John Paul II.
Right wing / left wing has nothing to do with it. She was PM for a decade, her legacy lasted over a decade more. She was Leader of the Opposition for almost 5 years, and a Minister before that.
And it as Maggie’s resolve which meant victory in the Falklands which ushered in democracy in Argentina. And it was Maggie’s resolve that meant we beat Saddam in Gulf War 1. Remember ‘Now is not the time to go wobbly, George’? She was the one who initially dealt with Gorbachev before he became premier. She’s the one who stood up to the unions. She and Reagan broke the Soviet Union.
We’ve still left huge swathes of the world almost uncovered thus far; apart from Ali, just about nobody who touched Africa; apart from Churchill’s rather sad second premiership, not much from elsewhere in the third world either.
Fidel Castro might be interesting, covering Latin America as well as Africa (mainly in a negative sense). Jawaharlal Nehru is probably a better choice than Gandhi for India, though Indira Gandhi might be better than either of them. For the Middle East, take your pick between Ariel Sharon and Yassir Arafat; probably Sharon.
This is laughable. To claim rightwing / left wing has nothing to do with it, then list a series of right wing talking points about how wonderful Maggie was…
Maggie’s incompetence led to the Falkland’s war in the first place. Her assault on the unions and the working class in general is a stain on British history (as is Churchill’s). And her and Ronnie prolonged the Cold War and the survival of the Societ Union by providing them with the necessary external enemy.