Lenin vs. Bismark

who was the greater leader?

Lenin is arguably one of the worst leaders in European History

Bismarck unified Germany to make it the most dominating European Power

German asset vs the unifier of Germany.
Really makes you think, huh?
The eternal kraut strikes again.

Lenin is without a shadow of a doubt one of the greatest of the 20th century, if not all time.

>BTFO the Russian empire
>BTFO allied intervention
>Manage to completely reorganize Russian society
>Radically change world history forever

You can say he wasn't a moral leader. You can say his leadership wasn't a positive influence. But he was beyond all doubt a skilled leader.

Tough question

Bismarck was certainly more successful, but Lenin's contributions were probably more significant in the long run

>Lenin is arguably one of the worst leaders in European History

How do you figure?

he's a soviet hence a durdy gommie hence bad

Undoublty Bismarck,

Bismarck turned with smart foreign political moves many squabbling States into one (if not the one) of the strongest European powerhouse in the 20th Century.

>Lenin was smuggled by Germans back into Russia,
>he turned an alread pissed off population against their weak leader.
>Bought a Rolls Royce from the money of his pillaging
>turned a agricultural Shit hole into an industrial shit hole.

He died. He's up there with Sun Yat Sen, start a revolution, die.

His only true feat was leading a successful revolution.

Apart from that:
>reorganization of the state went really shitty
>took ages to even reach prewar levels
>took really long to stabilize the state
>most of his "big" policies failed: war communism, NEP
>wasn't able to appoint his succesor, couldn't prevent stalins rise

Apart from establishing the UDSSR and winning the civil war he failed pretty much.

i hate them both but Trotsky was better and did more

>Bismarck unified Germany to make it the most dominating European Power

Germany was never the most dominating European power and I have no idea where you got that idea from. It was weak in resources and colonial possessions compared to France and Britain. It was not as industrialized as either. It was agriculturally not as advanced, or well organized.

The only thing it had was a strong military. But that military could never win a war of attrition (and it never did). Not exactly a sign of a great power.

>not as industrialized neither

You wot m8. This anti german sentiment here is getting on the same level as holocaust denial. Germany was definetely stronger as france economically and i think even stronger as britain when WW1 started. Not to speak about technology.

Next thing you know people here will unironically claim france and GB are better of today.

Well depends m8.

Economically the Germenz overshadowed british in the Manufacturing. Which, in late 19th Century Capitalism, was pretty much everything.

Militarily? Not so much. Germans had the best trained & equipped land army in Europe at the time. Meanwhile its navy is laughable in comparison to Britain.

>Germany was never the most dominating European power and I have no idea where you got that idea from. It was weak in resources and colonial possessions compared to France and Britain. It was not as industrialized as either. It was agriculturally not as advanced, or well organized.

>Germany fights Britain, France, and Russia for four years, allied to worthless allies, knocking Russia out, annihilating Britain's professional army in 1914, and making the whole Western Front a game in France.
>Not a single allied soldier was in Germany (nor Austria Hungary) during the armistice.
>Weak

>Germany was never the most dominating European power
Germany was - and still is - the most dominant power on the continent ever since they unified. The only European power to rival them is Britain. Anyone in denial about this is a major retard.

I'm not saying Germany was weak. It simply wasn't as powerful as the other great powers.
Also, after the initial german advances in the west, they were deadlocked for more or less 4 years. As I said, Germany just can't pull off a war of attrition. If the initial assault fails, so does Germany.

That doesn't make them weak - but they were not, and never were, the dominant power in Europe. That was always be Britain's role.

Not the guy you're talking to but Germany militarily beat Russia in the East while at the same time fighting off the combined might of France and Britain on French turf.

What exactly do you mean by "not as powerful as the other great powers"? Not as powerful as the others combined? Yes, certainly. Not as powerful individually? Utter nonsense.

>Also, after the initial german advances in the west, they were deadlocked for more or less 4 years.
What about the initial French and Russian advances? Or the Austrian and Italian ones? All continental nations feared the war of attrition, all nations planned offensively. All of them failed. To derive from that any statement in regards to the strength of a nation is ridiculous. If anything it tells us that the conditions of warfare had changed and fitting tactics and strategies had not yet been found.

>the dominant power in Europe. That was always be Britain's role.
Complete nonsense. The dominant powers in Europe have historically been the Houses of France and the House of Habsburg.

>implying france was at any point after 1871 as strong or stronger then germany
>that wasn't the case economically or militarily


>muh britain is the dominant power in europe
>present: yeah sure, GB is more dominant then germany (not that they are dwarfed economically or trying to prevent their union from crumbling)
>WW1: britan nearly bankrupted itself and jeopardized its colonial empire trying to win against the german empire (and it was the US that decided the war)
>WW2: raped in france, failure to protect their colonial assets against the IJN and IJA, reduced to an auxiliary role for the USA

Yeah totally not obvious that you are an anglo.

>What exactly do you mean by "not as powerful as the other great powers"? Not as powerful as the others combined? Yes, certainly. Not as powerful individually? Utter nonsense.

At no point could Germany defeat Britain. It did not have the navy or resources to do so. Perhaps it could defeat Britain's land armies, but Britain would never surrender. Britain would meanwhile easily beat Germany's naval forces and could just wait Germany out while relying on the resources of it's empire which was the largest in the world at that time.

>All continental nations feared the war of attrition, all nations planned offensively. All of them failed.
Yes, including Germany. The difference is, Germany lost. The others didn't.

>Germany lost

Against all of the other great powers combined. Beating russia in the process while the yanks saved GBs and Frances ass.

>muh germany could have never beaten GB

Britain and France together weren't able to beat germany combined. I really fail to see were you get that britain is magically stronger.

Britain could never wait Germany out while Germany is not busy fighting off France and Russia in a two-fronts war.

>Yes, including Germany. The difference is, Germany lost. The others didn't.
The others did not have to fight off against all others combined - unlike Germany.

Just a question because my understanding of the revolution is only a result of reading about WW1. Did he spearhead the initial revolution or just consolidate a number of independent groups that overthrew the government under his Bolsheviks.

Just in european history? You're being too generous.

I really think his reasoning is grotesque.

>3 dudes pick a fight with a really swole dude
>1 dude is already knocked out
>the other dudes also were nearly knocked out two or three times
>swole dude is pretty beat up too
>a fourth dude storms in and just knocks the swole dude out

>DUDE 3 WAS STRONGER LMAO

>Britain could never wait Germany out while Germany is not busy fighting off France and Russia in a two-fronts war.

Yes, they could. Because Germany's army would have no way of reaching Britain. But Britain could easily block off Germany from international trade, starving it out.

>The others did not have to fight off against all others combined - unlike Germany.

No, instead they fought Austria-Hungary, Ottomon Empire and Bulgaria.

>Britain could easily block off Germany from international trade
How much did international trade matter to Germany at that point? Not to mention that Germany could harass British trade through usage of submarines. And if Germany had no France or Russia to worry about, what would keep them from raising a comparable navy? Keep in mind that the supposed "arms race" between Germany and Britain never had the goal of actually outproducing Britain - the goal of Germany was to raise a Navy that was just large enough to deter Britain from attacking.

>easily could starve germany

Oh wait that only worked because russia and france also didn't trade with germany you genius. Otherwise they could easily get the ressources they need.

>unironically equating the Mittelmächte to the allies

>The ottomans were decaying for a century or two at this point.

>A-H: Instable and not fully industrialized.

>Bulgaria: Yeah...


Lets have a thought experiment:

Who would win if we swap Bulgaria with Russia? If Britain really was stronger the allies would have won even if russia was a Mittelmacht. Heck the allies would have lost even if russia was just neutral and still trading with germany.

>How much did international trade matter to Germany at that point?

A lot. Germany imported food and most of it's raw resources. It has few of it's own, which is another point in Britian's favour. Germany even struggled with wool to make clothes. A lot of money was going out of Germany, but not a lot was coming in.

Out of all the great powers, Germany was the one most dependant on trade.

>Who would win if we swap Bulgaria with Russia?

The allies.

>The allies.

Confirmed shitposter. You are not better then the wehraboos.

Implying Germany didn't also trade with Britiam during the war

Prove me wrong... You can't.

>No or much less drastic hunger winter because germany can trade through and with russia.
>In 1917-18 the allies nearly collapsed against the full german army, somehow in your timeline they are able to hold of all of the german army when they really struggled against the part they fought in RL.
>At this point we haven't even talked about russia contributing troops.

The latter

>In 1917-18 the allies nearly collapsed against the full german army,

No, they didn't.

>At this point we haven't even talked about russia contributing troops.

Russia providing more troops would be more food, supplies and materiel. Something the existing supply lines could barely manage. A wishful thinking of a scenario.

you really have an anti-german bias here

why?

I'm simply pointing out that out of all the great powers, germany was the least self-sufficient one and the one least likely to win in a prolonged war.

>least self sufficient
what are you basing this on?

Fact?

Bismark was master-creator, Lenin was master-destructor. Both have done huge job.

Stalin and Tito.

>Anyone in denial about this is a major retard

Basically, anyone with a shred of historical literacy is a "major retard" to you.For the record, their modern success can solely be attributed to them being propped up by the American Reparation Program, favorable outcome of the Yalta conference and the 1953 London Conference.