RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century

RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 2:57:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: asuwish40 I'd have tro say that the most influential American was certainly FRD. His New Deal revolutionized how Americans viewed government and it's role in our lives. We have him to thank for things like the FDIC, Social Security, and the welfare state. The new deal was a very socialist respoinse to an economic crisis so Marx has to be more influential on that score.

SlyStone -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 3:49:07 PM)
Winston Churchill Half American and half British, he defended democracy against Mussolini and Hitler while America was sitting on its collective ass pretending Europe was another planet and Hitler was a harmless buffoon. A few quotes: "All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." and here is one that george bush should have read: "Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

Arpig -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 3:53:31 PM)
quote: I would say Sigmund Freud, because his ideas started mass marketing, his nephew Edward Bernays started this mass marketing propaganda revolution that is still shaping and controlling society Another good one there Julia...so far I would say we have 3 real candidates..Princip, Keynes and Bernays...lets see what else folks here come up with

Arpig -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 3:58:33 PM)
Philosophy, while the IT revolution is huge, I think we overemphasize its imprtance to the 20'th century, however I would be willing to bet that either Gates or the Linux guy (can't remember his last name right now) will be top runners for the 21st centiury

Arpig -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 4:04:17 PM)
Marx's theories would have remained just that...obscure economic theories without the Leninist revolution, which itself could only have happened in the chaos of WW1 Russia, which is a direct result of Gavrilo's one bullet. He is one of my heros in an historical sense simply because he prooves that one man acting alone can change history...we are still dealing with the repercussions of his action today...the situation in Iraq, the development of computers, you name it almost all the threads of modern current affairs meet up in Sarajevo on that fateful day

Arpig -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 4:05:56 PM)
quote: Could not disagree more. WW1 was a time bomb waiting to happen. The result of imperialism from earlier centuries. If it wasn't a Bosnian nationalist it would have been someone else. Someone shoots someone in the head and he changes history? No chance. Good point NG, however it was him, and all that happened since has an sort of sense of inevitability to it He did change history, like it or not he provided the spark and lit the powder keg when so many other crisis had not...hitting the Hapsburgs poersonally that way was the one thing they could not overlook

seeksfemslave -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 4:09:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I agree with LadyEllen and Arpig I do too. Could not disagree more. WW1 was a time bomb waiting to happen. The result of imperialism from earlier centuries. If it wasn't a Bosnian nationalist it would have been someone else. Someone shoots someone in the head and he changes history? No chance. NG, I actually agree with you, how about that then ? The only reason more people were killed in WW1 and WW2 than in earlier times was because people had got better killing machines. Bigger bombs etc. Napolean did his best with what he'd got for example !

Zensee -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 4:15:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Could not disagree more. WW1 was a time bomb waiting to happen. The result of imperialism from earlier centuries. If it wasn't a Bosnian nationalist it would have been someone else. Someone shoots someone in the head and he changes history? No chance. Good point NG, however it was him, and all that happened since has an sort of sense of inevitability to it He did change history, like it or not he provided the spark and lit the powder keg when so many other crisis had not...hitting the Hapsburgs poersonally that way was the one thing they could not overlook But again, Arpig, that was incident not influence. He just happened to do it, he didn't plan a world war. To me influence means deliberate and sustained effort, not a momentary action. Still a good discussion. Interesting to see how different people chose political, cultural, philisophical or technological events as the most important. Z.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 4:18:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig OK, here's the question..which single person had the greatest influence on the 20th century. My vote goes to a trio of men William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Brattain. Their invention has been the foundation for most of the other inventions mentioned. Apologize if someone has already mentioned these men. I only gave the tread a quick glance.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 4:22:07 PM)
And the answer is the person who first put forward the idea that the masses, thats you lot out there, should not be treated with total contempt and nobody has a divine right to rule.

meatcleaver -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 4:28:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Could not disagree more. WW1 was a time bomb waiting to happen. The result of imperialism from earlier centuries. If it wasn't a Bosnian nationalist it would have been someone else. Someone shoots someone in the head and he changes history? No chance. Good point NG, however it was him, and all that happened since has an sort of sense of inevitability to it He did change history, like it or not he provided the spark and lit the powder keg when so many other crisis had not...hitting the Hapsburgs poersonally that way was the one thing they could not overlook It could be argued that the British Prime Minister, Asquith, was the most influential person because Britain didn't have to join in the war, it was not obligated by any treaties and if Britain stayed out of the war, the war would have remained a continental war. In fact if Britain stayed out of the war, it could have dominated post war Europe. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was used as an excuse to start the war, it wasn't the cause in its self.

farglebargle -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 5:39:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: asuwish40 I'd have tro say that the most influential American was certainly FRD. His New Deal revolutionized how Americans viewed government and it's role in our lives. We have him to thank for things like the FDIC, Social Security, and the welfare state. The new deal was a very socialist respoinse to an economic crisis so Marx has to be more influential on that score. JUST ENOUGH to shut up the critics, not enough to make any real changes in the structural problems.

pollux -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 8:11:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ......i know that this idea will be unpopular, but Bill Gates......for influencing so heavily the opening up of mass market computing. In terms of influence, it could be argued that such a powerful force towards the end of he 20thC outweighs influences earlier in the century. If you follow that line of thinking though, I think it leads you to the two guys at Bell Labs or whereever it was who invented the transistor. I'd vote for them (him?) before Gates, I think.

pollux -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 8:16:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Since the word used was "influential," I'm going to say Carl Gustov Jung. Interesting answer. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I sure think a lot of Jung. He certainly is one of the folks who exerted a lot of influence, without people necessarily knowing where the influence came from...

pollux -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 8:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig OK, here's the question..which single person had the greatest influence on the 20th century. My vote goes to a trio of men William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Brattain. Their invention has been the foundation for most of the other inventions mentioned. Apologize if someone has already mentioned these men. I only gave the tread a quick glance. Yep, those are the guys.

NorthernGent -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 10:50:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Could not disagree more. WW1 was a time bomb waiting to happen. The result of imperialism from earlier centuries. If it wasn't a Bosnian nationalist it would have been someone else. Someone shoots someone in the head and he changes history? No chance. Good point NG, however it was him, and all that happened since has an sort of sense of inevitability to it He did change history, like it or not he provided the spark and lit the powder keg when so many other crisis had not...hitting the Hapsburgs poersonally that way was the one thing they could not overlook It could be argued that Asquith and his Liberal goverment were more influential than Princip. Princip's shooting started a localised war between Austria and Serbia. This was always going to happen because of the tensions in the old Austro-Hungarian empire. The Germans and French fulfilled their treaty obligations - the French due to a vested interest in Russian bonds, but it wasn't certain which side the British would join. Most of those in the Liberal government in 1914 were pro-Germany and anti-France for liberal/progression reasons. Some senior members of the government actually resigned when Asquith decided at the 11th hour to enter the war on the French side. Britain entered the war because she couldn't trust Germany not to dominate the English channel on German occupation of France. If they could have come to an agreement, and Britain had entered the war on the side of her natural ally, there would have only been one winner. Britain wouldn't have bankrupted herself in two world wars, Germany would have realised her ambitions of a European continent dominated by Germany (about to be achieved through the EU). The result would have been two strong European powers. Russia's role would have been very different in this situation, and there would not have been a devastated Europe for the US to reap the benefits. Small things like the scientists the US picked off from Germany and used to build the atom bomb, financial arrangements which helped the US dominate Europe etc - the situation would have been very different. I think a nation such as the US with her huge resources and spirit of enterprise would have come to the fore at some point, but it would have taken much longer. It's like India now - democractic so ideas can flourish and huge manpower to generate innovation - it seems inevitable that India will be prominent on the world stage. What about the inventors of the telephone, computer, internet? Globalisation would have been limited in scope were it not for these developments in communications. Corporations could not have grown to the extent where some of them are more powerful than their government. Good discussion post, Arpig, 'can't agree with Princip, though. There were more significant factors influencing the outcome of WW1.

Emperor1956 -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 10:52:55 PM)
quote: Arpig: Another good one there Julia...so far I would say we have 3 real candidates..Princip, Keynes and Bernays...lets see what else folks here come up with shrug. Its your thread. You are dead wrong, but you can be as wrong as you want. Your thinking is surprisingly short term. Princip is irrelevant. The "map of Europe" c. 1918 today has virtually no relevance. The same map c. 1990 (which is a consequence of WWI, in your thinking, I gather) will have no relevance in 100 years. Princip was an angry crackpot with a lucky shot. No more. Keynes, maybe, is more of a contender. But I don't think economists, generally, have as much influence on societies as they do on those that describe societies. It is essentially a reactive, not proactive science. Bernays is a conceit. Freud even might be a conceit, but he deserves the nomination more for his Theory of Personality (which endures) than 90% of his other work. Why would you nominate a Western psychologist, when Shoma Morita said 90% of what Freud, Adler and Jung said and he said it first, and better (the reason of course is that you are limited in geographic scope as well as vision. So am I, btw. For all I know the true "influence" on the 20th C. is some 27 year old Tibetan that you and I have never heard of.) And if you want to name an influential psychologist, for god's sake, Albert Ellis has more real time influence on the last 1/2 of the 20th C. than almost any other shrinky type. I go with inventors of world changing inventions. I'd accept Mercnbeth's nomination of Shockley, et. all if it looked like their little tri-polar device had any staying power. But the "trans" in transistor is also transitory, and in fact the device will have little relevance in a few years. So, I renominate the guys that allowed women to reliably control conception for the first time in human history...and as I said, if not them, then the founders of human genetic engineering. Tho MJ does play a sentimental fav in my world. So does Mel Blanc. If your really want to play this game, you have to take a longer view. E.

NorthernGent -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 11:15:04 PM)
On reflection, the deeds/acts/inventions are the small details in comparison to the political system that allows for the exchange of ideas. In this sense, the biggest influence on the 20th century, or any century, is the species. Successive generations share and draw down on knowledge in order to understand notions of civil liberties, freedom and the exchange of ideas. Can it possibly be said that one person has been particularly influential in generating a system where ideas and innovation can flourish?

NorthernGent -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/8/2007 11:28:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: asuwish40 I'd have tro say that the most influential American was certainly FRD. His New Deal revolutionized how Americans viewed government and it's role in our lives. We have him to thank for things like the FDIC, Social Security, and the welfare state. The new deal was a very socialist respoinse to an economic crisis so Marx has to be more influential on that score. Marx had an idea, but Keynes provided the "evidence" for government to move away from its traditional role of defence and justice, and into managing the economy and social prosperity.

Zensee -> RE: Most historically influential person of the 20th century (6/9/2007 2:32:17 AM)
LOL - We don’t even agree what field of human endeavour or activity is the most influential, let alone who in that field stands above the rest. Still it is a more constructive and informative discussion than the gasoline and matches topics. None of the nominees arose in isolation – all of them are a part of a continuum of ideas and actions and even accidents. e.g. - Solid state electronics would not have happened without the seminal invention of the triode vacuum tube. The transistor merely rendered the same idea in solid materials. Even though the size reduction from tubes to transistors was considerable it was not sufficient to build desktop computers until the development of the integrated circuit - - - so which of the three is the most important / influential invention? Of course, without Tesla’s reliable power technology there would have been neither the means nor the demand for scientific or consumer electronics to inspire a push for miniaturisation – blah blah blah... And that’s just technology... Z.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625