Thanks for your detailed responses Bloomsby, and correct, I would never condone Hitler. My question wasn't a moral one. I was just asking for opinion on his leadership qualities (and he had those - pre 1939), but perhaps it is not an appropriate thread to do so. My view on Hitler is that he was an extreme opportunist, pouring fuel on fires of the moment, at the time 'controlled' fires, namely anti-semitism and political and social identities. No argument, he was a tyrant of unequalled proportions.

Bertho - I agree that Hitler was an 'extreme opportunist'. Many of his early foreign policy successes stemmed largely, I believe, from:

1. Precisely this opportunism. He seems to have acted on the principle 'I do what I can get away with' - a principle he shared with many, many other criminals. Not surprisingly, he very soon lost any real sense of judgment as to what he could and couldn't get away with.

2. Hitler's early foreign policy successes are attributable, in no small measure, to the weaknesses of other European politicians in the 1930s.

For me, there's always a problem about considering this kind of thing as 'great' *even in cases where there's no moral issue at all*. Is they anything great in succeeding because others are incompetent?

Very interesting point about 'opportunism'. This is one of the major reasons why I would not consider Hitler a great leader (along with the other, more obvious ones). I'm never impressed by a leader who is simply handed an opportunity to rule, and proceeds to manipulate popular social trends or political events to his or her advantage. All of the big-time dictators in history have taken full advantage of the greatest vulnerabilities of their people to make political hay. Mao took advantage of the extreme poverty in the Chinese countryside, for example. Coming from a backwater himself, this was no act of genius...just common sense, and it worked for him. True genius is social or political policy comes from bucking the trends and attempting something fresh and progressive, Queen Elizabeth comes to mind in this regard. She went against the traditional Roman Catholic grain at a time when it was still quite a popular religion amongst many of her subjects.

This reminds me of what is happening in the United States at the moment. Although I by no means want to suggest that George W. Bush is another Hitler, he certainly has taken advantage of one horrid act of terrorism to make political advantage for himself, and he is now putting the world in danger with his somewhat reckless policy towards Iraq simply because it is making him popular in the United States amongst the war-mongering religious right and the 'neo-conservatives'. What a shame that is...

Diehard...thanks for your comments. Whether you consider them credible or not is your own business. However, I would remind you that this is not the controversial issues forum and that a specific topic is being addressed...what makes a great leader. My comments about Bush and his motives were purposeful...I meant to exemplify the behavior that I find typical of a poor leader, of which, in my opinion, Bush is one.

If you wish to include comments about the topic at hand, please do so...otherwise, perhaps you could continue in the related thread in the controversial issues forum on that topic (Bush/Iraq).

Thank you for your response to my question thejazzkickazz. I hope you enjoyed your trip. In asking you about the reasoning behind your choices I was trying to find out what the criteria are for selecting a Great Leader or indeed the Greatest Leader. My views on how history happens are not particularly close to that of Carlyle so I am not entirely sure that there is such a thing (as a Great Leader). If I do a gentle dissection of thejazzkickazz's posts then I have as selection criteria:

A galvanising vision for their people.
Lead their countries to a new frontier politically, religiously or philosophically successfully
Relative long-term success of their ideas or institutions.
Interesting and innovative ways of achieving the above
Some consideration of the wellbeing of their people

I note these criteria take no position regarding people in the rest of the world not under the control of the Great Leader. Other posters feel that there should be a moral dimension to the rule. My own thinking is that in addition to the above some other criteria are needed. I propose the following:

Have achieved the greater part of their objectives by the time they died.
Their leadership cannot be dismissed easily by taking a Marxist view of events.
Won the conflicts they got into.

I am also tempted to suggest that they should have obtained the leadership for themselves, unfortunately this would exclude all hereditary monarchs and probably indicates a political bias on my part. There are not many of the leaders left in the running ,if you apply this set of criteria. As I cannot really think of anyone to fit the bill on all points (although there are a number who do quite well), I shall now play Devil's Advocate with everyone else's suggestions. I hope no one minds too much, if I do upset anyone please let me know.

Asoka is out on at least two counts, if I remember correctly he failed to complete the conquest of India (objectives) then got religion and his empire fell apart shortly after he died (long-term success)
Napoleon, Hitler, Hannibal and Churchill all lost.
Bolivar failed to achieve his objectives, there are many Spanish speaking states in northern South America he wanted one. The same is true of Gandhi and partition
Mao fails on several counts as do Lizzy I of England (Lizzy I of Scotland is of course alive and kicking), and Thermistocles.
Alexander of Macedonia had no compassion for his people and no real objectives but is certainly one of, if not the greatest generals of all time.
FDR as he allowed rampant racism to fester in his own country whilst fighting a war for democracy overseas should be discounted on the grounds of not considering the wellbeing of his own (black) people. In other respects his case holds up rather well.
Mandela is a symbol for a mass movement, the ANC was always greater than one man and the liberation struggle greater than the ANC. A brave, even noble man but not a Great Leader.
Between them Rama IV (Mongkut) and Rama V (Chulalongkorn); father and son did amazing things but neither achieved that much alone. They changed Thai society and stopped the West from colonising Thailand over the two reigns.
George Washington (Come on I'm British you think I'm going to let this traitor through?) fails the Marxist test, he rode the tides of history as did Atataturk, M. L. King and to a much greater extent Solon. I also think Solon should be made a special case and excluded on the grounds of writing poetry in praise of his own political achievements. This kind of thing makes Archer look good!
Agustus I am not quite sure why he is in the running?
Lee Kwan Yew the "Mayor" of a small town with a big port and Carter are ineligible, as they have done nothing great. Although Carter, my favourite modern US president may yet surprise me as a statesman.
Attlee and Peel LOL.

Interestingly and surprisingly, my limited knowledge of the rather odious DeGaulle leads me to suspect that he may meet the criteria although he is also somewhat tainted by the tides of history argument. Perhaps he is indeed a Great Leader? I shall have to do some reading.

I cannot really comment on the Kangxi and Yongzheng as what I know about the former would fit on a postage stamp and of the latter I know nothing. Education please thejazzkickazz? I have the same problem with Louis XIV of France I don't know enough about him.

Does any one have any other candidates? Would anyone like to challenge the criteria?

I have a little problem with the notion of Ataturk "riding the tides of history". I think your criteria are valid, Teilhard, and I think Ataturk fits them all.

(See, I didn't mention Gallipoli!)

Getting back to the original question, I would leave the No 1 spot for......
The others can be

Nero
Lord Canning
Indira Gandhi
Mushraff (spelling ?)
George W. Bush Jr

Reasons : you could argue in a way that they were not the people's choice, no one wants them but they were still the leader - now that, to me , is the tough part - it is pretty easy to be a great leader if you have the people's support!

Coming to Spot No 1, I need around 10 -15 years to reach there.

I shall continue my advocacy for the red feller with the pointy tail.

Coolupway

Ataturk fails the Marxist analysis in at least two respects. Firstly, the Ottoman Empire was on its last legs. Turkey, its heartland, had to change or it would be completely broken-up/colonised or otherwise come under Western control. Either change or occupation was inevitable. Similar examples of a response for the need to change can also be seen in; the Meji (sp.?) restoration in Japan, the Maori King movement and in Thailand. Secondly, at the time he was winning his new secular state (1919-1923) the Great Powers were all looking elsewhere so he was largely left to get on with it. The Soviet Union was being born, occupied and fighting a Civil War 1917-1922(ish). The Capitalist nations were all terrified and looking inward at their own populations with fear. Great Britain was also coming to terms with cancer at the heart of the Empire: Ireland won (most of) its freedom in 1921 and then proceeded to tear itself apart in civil war. This historical advantage is very similar to that enjoyed by Washington.

Although I did not mention it in my previous post to accept Ataturk as a Great Leader you also have to either ignore or explain Smyrna and the ethno-religious cleansing.

Gallipoli is good (as an example, he added hurriedly before the forums' Ockers, Kiwis and Indians come out to give me a good hiding) it simply demonstrates again what an utter loser Churchill was.

ace_Na

Yer kidding?

However by your own single criterion for Great Leadership:

Nero Yep.
Lord Canning dunno I will find out.
Mrs. G this is subtle an Indian joke right? Someone elected her once so no.
Mushraff ????.
GWB Jnr. give the poor guy a chance to die first then we can evaluate him fairly at present he is a work in progress.

Does your storm trooper logo have a fractal edge (off topic sorry)?

Someone must be able to think of an ironclad Great Leader I can't dismiss? Please I don't want to be the man who says DeGaulle is the Greatest Leader of all time.

Tielhard,

I think your listing of my 'criteria' is relatively satisfying, but you have clearly exposed a point that I failed to include in my previous post that I think would enhance the chances of at least a couple of my candidates, that is the influence a leader has on the people outside of his/her direct control.

You are correct about Asoka and the long-term failure of his empire (though 50 years isn't wholly a bad number, better that than none at all). As for his 'failure' in his conquest of India, I think this is somewhat of a red herring. Asoka renounced warfare eight years into his reign after he saw the horrible effects of warfare on both his and his neighboring people. Since there were no 'defined' boundaries upon which we could claim he would complete his task of conquest, I don't think his renouncing of war should be considered a failure, per se. Of course, solidifying borders is important for any sovereign state, but during his lifetime his borders remained sound, so we can blame the failure of his empire perhaps on his successors. If we take the long-term effects of his reign into account, and add the new criterian above of 'effect on people outside of the realm', Asoka does quite nicely, historically speaking (if you believe that the spreading of Buddhism had an overall positive effect on humanity). Asoka's adoption of the tenets of Buddhism had the effect of mollifying some of the worst aspects of the Hindu caste system in the Indian sub-continent, and the ultimate effect, through missionary work, of spreading the ideas of that relatively peaceful religo-philosophic system throughout south and east Asia. Buddhism probably would never have achieved its current status of 'world religion' without the actions of this one leader.

I think you should reconsider on your assessment of Asoka, at least.

Some of your other dismissals seem unfair as well, is it reasonable to dismiss a leader simply because they do not pass muster on one of the criteria above? Maybe we should instigate a ratings system, perhaps of 1-10 on each criterian, and see how the leaders do based on this ratings scale. With the 8 criteria listed above, a total of 80 points could be achieved...maybe a passing grade would be 60.

As for the dismissal of Bolivar, perhaps that's a bit unfair as well. His primary goal, achieving the independence of South America from the brutal yoke of Spanish rule, was achieved brilliantly. His later, more idealistic goal of achieving a united states of South America was admirable, but doomed to failure. I don't think this fact alone should remove him from contention as a great leader, however. After all, he does meet several other of the criteria mentioned above adequately, he was concerned for the public welfare and the ideals of democracy, and refused the throne when it was offered to him. Though he maintained dictatorial powers, he eventually relinquished them in the name of democracy, a rare occurrence in human history. Let's give old Simon a second chance!

I'd love to deal with more of the leaders, but I have to make haste...we'll continue this soon!

Let us be clear on Ataturk and genocide. While the infamous Armenian genocide took place in 1915, Ataturk was fighting the Brits and the Anzacs at Gallipoli... the Armenian genocide, generally conceded to be the first genocide of the 20th century, was the work of Enver Pasha and his minions, not Ataturk. As for the reconquest of Smyrna/Izmir seven years later, clearly atrocities occurred, as they inevitably do in times of war. How many of them are directly attributable to Mustapha Kemal I think it speculative to say.

As for the tides of history, the other Muslim states apart from Turkey generally fell into unabashed despotism (albeit with the help of the West in Iran's case through of the CIA coup against Mossadegh and US support of the Shah, both of which of course backfired and led to an arguably worse despotism ) following the fall of the Ottomans. Ataturk revived the "sick man of Europe" and kept pluralism firmly fixed in the country's viewfinder. Although there has been some backsliding in recent months, Turkey is still a relatively secular country. Especially in light of recent developments in the Near and Middle East, which suggest that the course of history in those environs is inexorably toward theocracy and religious obscurantism, doesn't Ataturk's achievement count for a bit more than we're crediting him for?

Tielhard - will the fact that she manipulated the results help in changing your opinion?
We may be under-developed in many aspects but not in corruption, electoral rigging , scams & scandalt.

have you heard of sardar vallabhai patel - I would count him as the greatest leader India has had ( and yet NOT had). His only fault was he couldn't refuse Gandhi! He was reponsible for uniting all the princely states (around 550 - the mess left behind by the Britishers!) after Independence. The only place he was not authorised to handle has now become a flashpoint - J & K.

on a serious note, I would include
Clement Atlee
Akbar & Ashoka
Genghis Khan
Benjamin Franklin (yup)
Bill Gates (no one mentioned in the field of politix)
Steve Waugh (Cricketer)
Barbarossa

I think you have made a decent defense of Ataturk's record, Doug. For several of the reasons you have listed, I included him on my list.

Ace...Steve Waugh? ha ha Seriously though, I think Patel is an underrated political thinker, good inclusion. How extensive was his political influence though? Is it safe to call him one of the three great political thinkers of 20th century India? What about Dr. Ambedkar? His influence in helping to achieve a voice for the Harijans could certainly be considered a crucial step in the devlopment of real democracy in India.

This is exactly the reaction I expected. I am serious about Steve.
Steve Waugh is a great leader with a World Cup triumph and 16 consecutive test victories. Sport is also a battle - he has shown remarkable leadership qualities - Australian team has more people with inflated egos than any other team in the world, save the INDIAN cricket team. To manage them into a winning unit is no mean achievement.
With respect to Dr. Balasaheb Ambedkar, I believe he made a mess of it when he wrote our constitution - trying to take all good points from constitutions around the world, we ended with a super long constitution full of .......!
Talking of Patel, he was second in popularity only to Gandhi, He supported gandhi in his Non-Violence approach and Yet he was one of the few who had the guts to tell Gandhi when he was wrong! he opposed partition the very first - he was not concerned about appeasing Muslims or Hindus - his goal was to unite India! He was more respected than Nehru and even the latter knew that ona direct confrontation with patel, either in elections or at party level, would only mean curtains for Nehru's political career!

This is long, my apology. On behalf of my client, Mr. Old Nick, I should like to respond as follows:

thejazzkickazz

Regarding the selection of (a) Great Leader(s). I do agree with you that it would be fairer to mark against each of our criteria numerically. There are unfortunately two big difficulties with this approach. Firstly, if a great leader is truly great then it should be possible to identify him/her simply by inspection against a set of criteria. 5/10 may be OK, 7/10 may get you a first but it is surely not enough if you want to call someone great? You also posed the question "is it reasonable to dismiss a leader simply because they fail on one criterion". My answer to that is, if we are looking for Great Leaders, yes it is perfectly reasonable. This is not of course to suggest the current criteria are perfect or final. My second point is much more practical. I would like to keep a debate going in this thread rather than just having everyone posting his or her favourite leader. At present I am the only person taking a contrary view on most candidates, I do not always know a large amount about some of them so it would be impossible, for me at least, to give a numerical value for their 'greatness' in each category.

I shall, as you ask go away and reconsider Asoka especially as ace_sodium is also plugging him as a Great Leader. Simon Bolivar, sorry, I look at him and his achievements and basically he is not in the running.

Coolupway

I agree with thejazzkickazz "you have made a decent defence of Ataturk's record". Unfortunately that is exactly what it is, a defence. You have made more than judicious use of rhetoric and misdirection. I make the following responses:

1) You have not really addressed my central point, rather you have played lip service to it. Things had to change. If Ataturk was not there to lead it someone else would have been or there would have been a take-over in some form. When you talk about other Moslem states I presume you are talking about the old Ottoman provinces rather than the whole of Islam? In which case the central point you neglect to mention is that they were provinces, Turkey was the heartland. I also reiterate again the point that the Great Powers were all looking elsewhere when Turkey was in flux.
2) I never suggested he had anything to do with the Armenian atrocities I accept your assertion that it was not his work. I take it you are going for the excuse Smyrna approach? It is the lesser cleansings and the homogenisation of the population I was alluding to.
3) You would appear to regard secularism as a desirable goal absolute and I suspect this may be lending bias to your championing of Ataturk

One other point when mentioning allied combatants at Gallipoli it is always a good form to mention the Indian contribution as a Tamil gentlemen once spent the whole evening rather menacingly reminding me (long story).

ace_sodium

On Mrs. G.. Yes she was a horrible person and her political shenanigans were well publicised over here but she still had a large number of people voting for her.

Steve Waugh, I am assuming that he is the Australian Cricket captain based on your post and others? Let me make this absolutely clear: Cricket is not a sport! Cricket is terminal boredom with bats in front of a comatose audience. No one understands the rules, the ball is dangerous and how can anyone possibly have the time to play a game that may last three days? Far from being great anyone who even considers playing the game should be taken to the nearest psychiatric hospital with great speed.

In response to your more serious list of candidates:

No I have not heard of Sardar Vallabhai Patel this is strange given the amount of Indian history I received at School, in all likelihood I must have forgotten about him. Give me time I shall try and read him up over the weekend.

I am reconsidering Asoka due to strong support as mentioned above.
Attlee (there is the Gallipoli link again!) I was unkind to him with my 'LOL' comment earlier especially as I am a Socialist and until recently an (old) Labour voter. He at least deserves the courtesy of a formal rejection from consideration. The 1945 labour government did great things; it changed British society in ways that lasted almost fifty years and began to disassemble the Empire, an institution that's time had past. He was however largely a figure head for a mass movement. The British people voted Labour because they wanted change. If he had died on his day of election there were other capable people in the Labour cabinet who could have taken his place and done nearly the same job.
Barbarossa, I assume you mean Fredrick and not Red Beard the pirate? Dying shortly after taking the cross could be regarded as failing in one's objectives perhaps? No, that is unfair. My impression of Fredrick's dealings both in Northern Italy and with the Papacy itself are of a very muddled time, little in the way of clear objectives, inconsistent achievement no real innovative thinking, basically a mess. I don't think we can regard him as a Great Leader.
Akbar, I assume you mean Akbar the Great Mughal emperor? This is difficult as I quite like Akbar if I were not appearing for Mr. Nick I may have suggested him myself. First off if you include his Hindu subjects as his people there was not a lot of compassion going around and at least one massacre. I am also unsure if the religious tolerance normally attributed to him can be regarded as a 'vision for his people' or 'a new frontier' I think rather it may have been political expediency.
Ghengis Khan. I have been waiting for him! To have destroyed so much to so little purpose? No, not a great leader.
Ben Franklin was many things and quite an exceptional person but a Great Leader? Could you please explain why you think he should be considered.
Bill Gates same response as to GWB Jnr. He is still alive, he is not yet 'ripe' for judgement. He has not finished writing his page in history.

I agree with your assessment of Ambedkar this is unfortunate as there is much to admire in him.

AOB

DeGaulle, I can find nothing wrong with his case. A scumbag but consistent and true to his objectives, people and ideals. Can anyone else think why this man is not a Great Leader?

De Gaulle "true to his people"? So Big Chuck was in France from mid- 40 to mid-44, working with the Resistance, right?

I am nominating Marshall Jozef Pilsudski of Poland. More info here.

Beatka

I read the link but perhaps you could take a moment to explain why you think the Marshall is a great leader.

Coolupway

He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day,
He who stands when all is lost, know defeat and all its costs.

If you can demonstrate that "Lanky boy, big 'ooter" is not a great leader I would be delighted. However, I think if we follow your last bit of "reasoning" when considering great leaders we are only going to be left with a few mad Samurai!

Incidentally I read your post on hi-jacking threads I was very interested. Do you know I have never read a thread quite like it before but I have this curious boil on my backside that looks just like Errol Flynn in Operation Burma which I feel is highly relevant, I just can't quite explain why. It probably has something to do with the difference between Vegimite and Marmite although no one ever seems to want to mention Bovril, I wonder why.

Tielhard,

I'm going to take a stab at a couple of other leaders on my list that I think you have unfairly shot down in rather too terse a manner.

Mongkut, or Rama IV if you prefer, began his reign during a very difficult period in his country's history. As you probably well know, the British and the French were in the process of carving up Southeast Asia one piece at a time, the British taking control of Malaya and Burma while the French acquired Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos. Meantime, Siam was in a decline of sorts after reaching a high point during the reign of the first Chakri King Rama I. Hence, Mongkut was forced to pick up the pieces left by his predecessors while at the same time dealing with the hungry European colonial powers. I believe he did this in a masterful way, playing one off of the other and staving off the seemingly inevitable colonialization that had afflicted its neighboring Southeast Asian countries. Mongkut, much like the Meiji leaders in Japan, had the foresight to realize that the best way to deal with these predatory powers was to learn the Western style political and economic game. He negotiated equal treaties with the French and the British, and concluded similar deals with other Western states thereby creating a situation where Siam would not be overly beholden to any one of these powers. These maneuvers also allowed Siam to become part of the changing modern world in a much less painful manner than its counterparts within the region.

Not to be content with this, however, Mongkut also began a reform program in Thailand that included the abolition of slavery (which directly affected his lifestyle), and the modernization of the legal and administrative structures of the country (which directly affected his power and influence). In addition, the civil service sector was initiated during his reign. Mongkut also dealt with the Chinese 'problem' in his country by allowing for a gentle assimilation of this substantial ethnic minority (which, if you know anything about the Chinese in Southeast Asia, is quite significant...the Chinese were treated rather violently elsewhere). Railroads were constructed, seaports were developed and infrastructure was built-up in the cities.

You are correct in asserting that Chulalongkorn came along to 'finish' the reforms begun by his father. The modernization of the country's education system and military occurred during his reign. However, I believe that Mongkut should still be considered the catalyst for the modernization of Thailand and that his son was simply following up on his father's work, his endeavors obviously having been cultivated by his far-sighted father. When comparing Thai history in the modern era with the history of other states in Asia, it's pretty clear that Thailand has been quite fortunate and relatively successful both economically and politically. Mongkut is largely responsible for these circumstances.


Okay...now to Lee Kwan Yew. I don't think it's fair to imply that he's simply some backwater mayor of a podunk town in Asia. Considering that Singapore has one of the top 10 GNP per capita rates, is the 10th largest exporter and 9th largest importer in the world, and has a GDP larger than Egypt, a country with over 20 times its population, we have to consider Singapore a statistically significant country in the world. Singapores economy, wonderful public works and social programs and stable political system can be essentially attributed to the philosophy of one man, Lee Kwan Yew. Now this is no hagiography I'm writing here, the Singaporeans have had to go without many of the political and social freedoms that many Westerners take for granted, but these past sacrifices perhaps can be excused when one considers the magnificent success that Singapore has had. Take a visit to the country nowadays, you won't find a more beautiful city anywhere in the world. You will find that people have essentially the same freedoms that they do in similar societies in respects to their economies. Singapore is more or less free and open, though political descent is still somewhat frowned upon. Hell...I'd choose to live there if the opportunity came.

Anyhow...enough blathering, have to get back to 'work'.

I believe that the greatest leader of all time was John F. Kennedy. Second best was William J. Clinton.

Dakota, the question is who is the greatest leader of all time, not who is the greatest liar of all time. (don't get mad at me)

Kennedy never lied and Clinton omitted a few things. Omitting is not lying.

Never say never Dakota.. I think you are too young to remember the Bay Of Pigs? And as for Bill, I will leave it to those more eloquent than I to respond.

Among other things, Kennedy lied about the supposed missile gap (a if not the key campaign "issue"), knew he was lying, and laughed about it later. See Paul Johnson, "A History of the American People," p. 853.

As for his leadership qualities, he botched the Bay of Pigs, and ratcheted up the extent of our involvement in Vietnam far more than any other president did. I believe when Eisenhower stepped down we had a few hundred men there; when JFK was assassinated we had about 20,000. He took an extremely pusillanimous position on civil rights, leaving it to LBJ to ram the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

Leadership?

DakotaNorth,

My client informs me that there is no need for me to intervene in the matter of Mr. Kennedy as he has already been weighed, measured and found wanting by others posting on this thread. In the matter of Mr. Clinton, he must be excluded from consideration as others have been simply because he is still with us, we just don’t know what he will do between now and the time of his passing.

thejazzkickazz,

I have not forgotten about Asoka but I have not done anything about reviewing the case either.

Rama IV (Mongkut)

First off I agree with most of what you say about the man but I feel you have been very generous in your assessment of him. For example you say;

"Mongkut also began a reform program in Thailand that included the abolition of slavery", true but he did not actually manage to abolish it.

You also say "the civil service sector was initiated during his reign.", this is sort of correct, the Siamese empire already had a Civil Service a part of the client/patron system. What Mongkut did was to introduce a Western style Civil Service more acceptable to the Great Powers.

I also note in passing that a large number of commentators credit the rise of Thailand/Siam as a modern nation to Rama V (Chulalongkorn) and largely discount the contribution of Mongkut although I do not myself agree with this assessment. The case against Mongkut, first off he became king (of Bangkok) in a time of change something would happen the only question was what. Secondly very early in his reign the Siamese were expanding in the Lan Na region, this was a military failure and ended any further expansion attempts. Thirdly, and given his age perhaps most seriously Mongkut never secured the succession. Next, most of his reforms or attempted reforms were incomplete at the time of his death. Finally, the threat from the West had not been neutralised by the time of his death only held at bay. By the time of his son’s death in 1910 independence and reform were assured. As I implied before between the two of them they may make one Great Leader.

Lee Kwan Yew

You have written a very nice paean to the Lion City but I don’t think it does anything to support Lee’s claim to Great Leaderhood. The whole point about Singapore is that it is not "some backwater … podunk town in Asia" it is a good harbour at the crossroads of many of the world’s major trade routes. Adam Smith, physical geography and so on. If any one should get GL status for what Singapore has become surely it should be Raffles?

As for what you describe as a "stable political system" repression is repression. The most odious thing about Lee is that he has demonstrated to avid students in the governments of both East and West that Capitalism needs neither personal liberty nor democracy to flourish.

"Take a visit to the country nowadays, you won't find a more beautiful city anywhere in the world."

I have been in Singapore in recent years, It is as you say beautiful in part but it is also sterile in places and much of it is built on a bigger than human scale, Raffles City for example. However; Barcelona, Stockholm, Paris, Munich and Gratz are all in my opinion more fair. Whups! I have gone to far off topic Coolupway will have the thread police around to hang me up by my ankles and focus my attentions.