• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why are the allied leaders of WWII more revered than the leaders of WWI

ronki23

Well-Known Member
Churchill and FDR have more of a lasting legacy and positive image than Georges Cleamencau, Woodrow Wilson and David Lloyd George.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Wilson was a white supremacist and segregated national offices. Screw him. Don't know anything about the other two.
 

M83

Too busy staring at my shoes
Easier access to information through radio is the first thing that comes to mind. People in the 40s would of heard more from their leaders instead of just reading a snip in a newspaper.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Churchill and FDR have more of a lasting legacy and positive image than Georges Cleamencau, Woodrow Wilson and David Lloyd George.
Because the leaders of the First World War made much more of a mess of things than the leaders of the second (Churchill, of course, made several catastrophic mistakes in both, but history, as they say, is written by the victors, so he's remembered more fore his successes than failures)
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Churchill and FDR have more of a lasting legacy and positive image than Georges Cleamencau, Woodrow Wilson and David Lloyd George.
There are streets near me named after Lloyd George and Clemenceau, as well as a whole bunch of WWI battle sites. There are some named for WWII battles, but none for Churchill or FDR, AFAIK.

That being said, the horrible cost of WWI left a very negative legacy here in Canada. Perceived treatment of the "colonial" troops as expendable played in a huge role in the push for greater sovereignty for Canada, starting with getting Canadian troops under Canadian - instead of British - leadership and then leading to devolution of powers from Westminster to Ottawa, and eventually - arguably - to Newfoundland choosing to give up being a British protectorate and joining Confederation. The leaders of WWI, especially the British leaders, are seen as somewhat complicit in the slaughter of Canadians and Newfoundlanders, which takes a lot of the sheen off them.

Read the stuff out there about the Royal Newfoundland Regiment at Beaumont-Hamel and the absolute stupidity and recklessness with those soldiers' lives by the British command. It was a century ago, but thinking about it still makes me mad.
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
Out of curiosity, who led France during World War 2 and why did France lose to Germany despite arming France to the teeth and wanting to crush Germany post WWI? Georges Clemencau was a great leader.
 
Top