Who are the most incompetent leaders in history who somehow end

File: Mein-kampfy-chair.jpg (38KB, 280x440px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 280x440px

>>584924

Almost all Thai Kings have "The Great" in their title.

>>584924
Gr̈ofaz

File: 115076-004-26CDAD59.jpg (17KB, 383x450px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 383x450px

This sack of shit is somehow considered in multiple polls and surveys to the most popular leader among Russians while Khrushchev and Gorbachev are considered among the worst

How or why they consider Brezhnev anything but a walking disaster who basically doomed the USSR is beyond my understanding.

>>584924
>hated england
>hated english people
>couldn't even speak english
>didn't even live in england
>tried to literally sell england

I don't see a problem here

>>584942
He enjoyed the results of the reforms to consumer good production that Khrushchev had created.

>>584942
Because he shifted production to housing and consumer goods, which made life much better. During Stalin's and Khrushchev's tenures, most of industrial input was reinvested. It was beneficial in the long run, but people lived off scraps in horrible housing conditions.

Brezhnev was a sack of shit who wrecked the USSR, but during his rule the relative standard of living in Russia and other republics was the highest in the entire twentieth century.

>>584924
Because he formed the Angevin Empire, which while was immediately sabotaged by that chucklefuck John, would only be surpassed during the Colonial/Imperial age.

Also he didn't suck at Crusading, in fact, he was one of the best Crusaders. Because he wasn't retarded enough to take Saladin's bait.

>>584987
Richard didn't form the Angevin Empire, his father Henry ii did, or arguably his grandmother Matilda.

Not OP but one reason to hate Richard is the his greedy attitude and lack of respect towards his father.

George Washington. Lacklustre general and mediocre statesman, yet Americans act like he was the second coming of Augustus

>>584924
Washington

>>584924
At the time of Richard the Lionhearted, Normandy and the French possessions were considered to be more valuable and profitable than the English counterparts. Therefore it makes complete sense that England was not actually that important to him.
As for Crusading, just plain what.
Richard was a great Crusader. He outwitted Saladin and was one of the only figures to make any progress in the Crusades.

File: image.jpg (279KB, 1324x1672px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1324x1672px

>>584942
>Gorbachov

Mishkev the Marked. Fuck him and the ruin he brought on Great Russia.

Obama
b
a
m
a

>>588295

He eventually won, so don't hate the player, hate the game.

But more importantly, he was a military leader who willingly gave up power to people he disagreed with.

History has proven that is not the norm and it is the proof of Washington's greatness as a leader.

>>588350
This.
He's basically an American Cincinnatus. The willingness to give up power is highly respected. Most people don't realize that he could've been dictator for life if he wanted to be. Before the writing of the Articles of Confederation, there was talk of installing him as an American king.

>>586357
Can we derail to talk about how much of a hilarious asshole Henry II was? He outlived his first heir, fought everyone, including his sons, and gave John his pathetic nickname and probably most of his complexes.

FDR

>provoked the Axis so he could go to war to fix the economy because the New Deal didn't actually work
>powerhungry as fuck; tried to pack the courts, broke the two-term tradition, had almost complete control of the Democratic party because he threw out his opponents

and to top it off

>used as a smug fucking posterboy for modern PC liberals despite his internment of the japs, germans, and italians

Richard lionheart was a bro. He died laughing and sparring some little shit.

>>588466
The Lion in Winter

>>588555
Replied to the wrong post, dumbass

>>584924
>Hated England
>Hated English people
>Couldn't even speak English
Spoke French, just like all English nobles. Did the priests hate England because they spoke Latin?
>Didn't even live in England
England as a self identifying Nation didn't exist.
>Spent all his time sucking at crusading and bankrupting the country
The situation was against him to much when he arrived there, he did take Acre
and he took Cypress
>Tried to literally sell England to the highest bidder so he could continue sucking at crusading
King James 2 successfully sold England out to the Bank of England

My pick would be Winston Churchill
watch the Greatest Story Never Told to find out why.

>>584924
People to this day think he was given moniker "Lionheart" for some kind of brave deed and not because he showed his heart being that of a lion (beast) when massacring prisoners

>>588466
A king would have been better

The masses have no place in the decision making and economic aspects of government.
International Bankers take over the whole situation every single time.

so long as people have the rights of life liberty and property, why do they need to vote?

I'm saying with confidence that 99% of people know him only as a deus ex machina from that Robin Hood tale.

>>584924
>sucking at crusading

He spanked Saladin something fierce

Shitty weather was literally the only reason he couldn't take Jerusalem in #3, it was barely even defended. Re-established the older crusader states too.

>>588637
Oh, hello there Adolf, how're things?

>>588319
>>588674

It was all for shit though. Richard could defeat Saladina s many times as he wanted, but Saladin could just raise more troops from Syria and Egypt, while Richard had to rely on reinforcements coming across the sea or over land all the way through Europe, and that was only if they weren't intercepted or tied down by the french or his brother.

>>584953
This. England was nothing special until much much later (and still mostly because they could feel relatively safe and isolated).

>>588609
>The greatest story never told
I want teenage stormfags from /pol/ to leave

>>588858
oh you know how things are mane

getting ready to head off to my shitty job

File: 1452488467900.jpg (62KB, 664x561px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 664x561px

>>589222
its actually just one guy posting

File: john hands on no lands.jpg (13KB, 306x238px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 306x238px

>being so shit that there's no english king named after him afterwards

>>588637
Remember who could vote in the early days of the country. Property land owning white males. So its not really "the masses"

>>590619
As it should be, illiterate garbage has no business running a country.

>>588333
who tf considers Obama great lmao

>>588609
>James II
>BoE

1688
6
8
8

>>590619
good point.

>>588858
>Adolf
>advocating for the monarchy

You're so stupid it hurts

>>588858
Oh, hello there reddit !, how're things?

he also started a genocide of jews at his coronation so there's that

>>584924
How are the first four things bad?

Anyways he was a great military leader and lead a crusade so they decided to name him the great.

>>584942
>Gorbachev
Believe it or not, but Russians generally don't view Gorbachev as the "great bringer of liberty" he's hailed as in the west. They see him as a corrupt motherfucker who sold the entire country off to tycoons and westerners. His reforms led directly to the collapse of the USSR (something which not many Russians were actually craving for, especially not the lower class ones) and the economic disasters of the 90's (when people were literally dying of starvation - something that never happened under post-stalin soviet rule, not matter how long the breadline has gotten).

>>584953
>>589167
>>592014
People can consider those as bad things (bawww he hates his own country!!!) if they fail to understand that Richard wasnt an Englishman but a Frenchman ruling over England

>>588295
>Lackluster general
Citation needed

>>592104
Fort Necessity

File: franco.png (707KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 960x640px

Only got his dick sucked by the Americans because he didn't join the Axis (because he had a hissy fit over Hitler not giving him Morocco), and for joining NATO

>>590619
>Property land owning white males

Voting requirements varied from state to state and property requirements didn't last more than 30 years in most of the US. Also the definition of "property" was incredibly broad including things like government bonds. Not many white men were excluded from voting for any reason.

>Washington
>incompetent

If anything, I would argue that he is actually underrated as a general. It's no question the US had a lot of foreign help, but Washington had a knack for recognizing talent and was a great strategist. New York then Valley Forge could've royally fucked the revolution, but he kept it together through sheer force of personality and put guys in place who tied down the British away from his main objectives

>>592359
t. American

>>592359
>Washington
>underrated
You didn't even defend that point, you just sucked him off for a whole post.

>>584924
Albert Einstein.

>>592373
You're goddamn right I am

>>592403
Recognizing talent for command, valuing strategy over tactics, and his personality holding a fucking army together wasn't enough?

>>584924
At what point did English kings actually begin prizing England over their French possessions? Edward I?

>>592520
I would argue recognizing talent for command, valuing strategy over tactics, and holding an army together (through any means) are the duties of any supreme commander. Because he was capable of doing so doesn't necessarily make him great.

That being said, I do believe Washington was a good leader and most importantly, one who learned from his mistakes. I don't think he is overrated or underrated, he probably deserves the position he has.

>>584924
He didn't bankrupt the country, only himself, because he was away crusading he couldn't properly tax the kingdom so this was an era of freedom.

>>588494
Fuck off, his sons are the arseholes who disrespected him and rebelled with their scank of a mum Eleanor of Aquitaine. Henry put a lot of work into his empire.

My favourite part about him is that at age 18 whilst faced with issues on the continent he just goes "fuck it" and goes to finally conquer England. Bold move.

>>588535
He died from a crossbow bolt.

>>588535

He got killed by an arrow/bolt during a pointless siege on some European castle, whilst returning from the crusades.

He ordered the cook who hit him to be spared and even rewarded for it. As soon as he died the order was ignored and the cook was flayed alive. The guy was a bro, but also fool hardy

>>588674
No, the problem was that even if he took Jerusalem, all the pilgrim crusaders would leave as soon as their pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre was finished, and there would be no conceivable way to defend it.

The Templars advise him themselves in the Chronicles of the Third Crusade, not to take Jerusalem as it's not worth it.

>>592623
Nope, it wasn't on return from Crusades. He was fighting to gain his territory back and stamp out rebellion throughout the french territories for a few years after being released from captivity, thanks to the cunt Philip Augustus attacking his shit whilst he was away.

Rest is true.

File: kinggeorgeac3-1000x590.jpg (169KB, 1000x590px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1000x590px

What would have happened if George Washington was instilled as king?

Remember, he had no children. Hamilton and Jefferson were among his favorites.

>>584942
Gorby and Khrushy were also shit, but still better than Yeltsin.

>>592796
A civil war immediately following the revolution, like happened in France, Russia, or Ireland.

I think the republican side would have won, for the same reasons that the British couldn't control the US effectively.

>>588637
And you don't have a right to spew propaganda your prole. Now get back the the mines.

>>592048
Only shitlibs see him as a great liberator, and only then to avoid giving any credit to Reagan. Every other westerner knows he was the soviet Jimmy Carter.

>>592816
Hmm. The revolution wasn't about republicanism vs. monarchy though.

>>584942
>Gorbachev
>Good

Christ, really? >>592048 hit the nail on the head, he was incompetent and destroyed the nation.

>>592643

Ah fair, don't know where I heard that from then.

>>588295
Shit general but how was he a bad statesman?
>>592104
Well for one, by his own admission. For another, most of his other generals produced tremendously better results than he did

File: 200984_original.jpg (50KB, 507x615px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 507x615px

>>584942
> Brezhnev
> the most popular leader among Russians
That was 2013. Stalin and Lenin gained a lot of popularity recently (mostly due to growth of "eliminate corruption" or "take down oligarchs" factions). Stalin went over 54% in Dec 2014 (Brezhnev had 56% in 2013), IIRC.

> Gorbachev
What the >>592048 said. Also, Gorby was egotistical shit who destroyed the ruling system of USSR, as well as countermeasures against dictatorship (that paved the way to Yeltsin's coup), just to become the Supreme Ruler of Soviet Union (until he created post of President of USSR, there was no "head of state" in USSR - Soviet Union was ruled collegially, by the High Council).


>>584979
> Khrushchev had created
Many people disagree. Most of his innovations were created either during Stalin's reign, or Malenkov's (who was a Stalinist).


>>584980
> Brezhnev
Reversed some of the dumbest decisions Khruschev made and mostly continued the old politics. He is mostly hailed for ruling during the very few non-turbulent years Russia had in XX century.

>>584924
he was a very great crusader, but the crusaders were always going to be pushed out anyways no matter how good their leaders were
and that's really where his renown comes from, no one remembers him for much besides his crusading, but it was good enough to blur out the mediocre other parts

>>592575
i'd say it was pretty much a slow process as the land in england became more and more valuable and powerful
eventually the holdings in france were mostly just a prestige thing

>>592575
I don't have maps at hand but between Richard Lionheart and Edward III they lost most of it to a series of French kings. At the start of the Hundred years war they only held a few tiny bits.

File: Territorial_Conquests_of_Philip_II_of_France.png (139KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 800x600px

>>594731
There it is, didn't become less important. They just lost it.

>>592359
If he has a knack for recognizing talent why don't you trust him when he said he was a mediocre general?

>>594711
I wish people who don't know shit would stop answering.

>>Spent all his time sucking at crusading and bankrupting the country
Pretty much every French nobleman too.

>oops got captured
>quick another round of taxes to pay for lavish gifts to the Saracens

>>594656
Good God, Stalin and Lennin? The two men most responsible for reversing Russia's rise in the early 20th century, the two leaders who probably got more Russians killed than any other? The two leaders who sucked up to the Germans and were almost both ultimately fuck by them. Two psychopaths who didn't care for their people and were focused on their own goals and dreams at the cost of all others? I think the Russians deserve the shit they get they seem to have a historically grounded hard-on for autocrats

>>584924
>sucking at crusading

That's wrong tho. He captured Acre and defeated Saladin a couple times

>>592359
>Washington capitol
>Washington State
>Washington monument
>Washington on the dollar bill

>underrated

>>588516

Word