I'm here in Turkey right now. Since I was trying to accept native language spellings for all these leaders when possible, I just added a couple more type-ins for Pasha, whose name I've seen spelled a few different ways here that I wasn't aware of before. I even had a hotel room named after one of the other Pashas a couple nights ago.
i noticed that with the first two brit p.ms, they are out of order. Chamberlain was prime minister before churchill. Chamberlain led Britain in the first 8 months, and then resigned. Churchill was called to replace him.
I'm not sure what you're talking about but I think you are looking at the quiz wrong. Those aren't the first two British P.M.s... they're the last two. The leaders given here, if they all come from the same country, are listed in reverse order top-to-bottom. Look at the dates.
H.H. Asquith and David Lloyd George were British P.M. during "World War I," and this quiz is about the world leaders of "the World Wars"... it's counting both wars as a single extensive and protracted conflict. It's not just about "WW2." Maybe this is where your confusion stems from.
Small typo. Wilhelm is either spelled with a capital W followed by a capital I or spelled with a capital W followed by a lower case "L". I can't tell which. I know it's pedantic, but hey...
I think the popular spelling changed when I was in college or thereabouts. Both are accepted. I even accept the Russian spelling of the name unlike many quizzes on the site.
It is just sad how the leaders of the nation that fought in both wars from the very beginning (although in WWI mainly in the armies of the occupying empires) and suffered the most (or is at least in the top 3) are virtually unknown to the Westerners. Sorry, but Ethiopians or Spaniards had almost no major impact during any of the wars, yet their leaders get the credit. Just sad...
I don't disagree and I would have left them on if it was purely to satisfy my own prejudices, but QM likes the front page quizzes to be fairly accessible; Franco and Selassie are famous personalities- though this has to do with the fact that they shaped world history in other ways not directly related to WW1 or WW2. Of course Poland was much more important to the course these wars took than Spain or Ethiopia.
Don't be sorry, it's not your fault :) In fact in your original quiz they were mentioned which proves that you know more about the subject than the average person - good for you! It just makes me sad that the leaders of the nation that played a pretty important role (especially in WWII) are virtually unknown to the general public. Couple of months ago I just read a book about Piłsudski which explains how he could crush the Soviets twice during the Polish-Soviet war and Russian Civil War. He didn't because (among other factors) he perceived Soviet as less organised, weaker and less of a threat to Poland (which in 1919 was true). Just imagine how would the world look like had he changed his mind...
John Curtin was far more important than Menzies in terms of leadership during WW2. One of the most important events in Australian history was Curtin's decision to put Australia's defence and the war in the Pacific ahead of supporting the British in Europe, and aligning Australia much closer to the US - a decision which has strongly affected Australian foreign policy ever since.
Perhaps separating them into specifically WW1and WW2 quizzes? This will allow scope for getting some of the obscures in both conflicts back in. I miss Ryto Rysti. :)
Terrible choice of Menzies over Curtin. Menzies did nothing as PM to the war effort and Curtin had to do everything when he came to power. Your understanding of Australian history is obviously very limited.
Why is Truman (U.S. President from April 1945) included but not Attlee (U.K. Prime Minister from July 1945, and who attended the Potsdam Conference) not?
Though.... those comments seem to have disappeared? Maybe QM deleted them to avoid offending any oversensitive Englishmen? Or the person who originally commented about this deleted their own comment and the follow-up comments went out along with it...
Anyway, in short, Atlee was totally insignificant to the course of the world wars. He assumed office *after* war in the European theater had been won. The Americans were still fighting the Japanese at that point, but Atlee had nothing to do with it. Truman saw the war through to its ultimate end, and made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It makes no sense to equate the two.
Well, the commitment of Task Force 57, (British Pacific Fleet) for one, as well as the timing for the liberation of Malaya and the formation of Tiger Force, the RAF/Commonwealth AF strike force in the frame to bomb Japan if they hadn't surrendered after the atomic bombs were dropped.
It would be nice to see people being a bit more generous to Clement Attlee, a decent politician who sadly came to power at the wrong time. Nevertheless, a very good quiz.
I made no comments regarding his abilities as a politician, I just questioned whether or not he had anything at all to do with the World Wars. Your comment reinforces my belief that, no, he really did not. Isn't it the popular narrative that the main reason Churchill lost was that he was seen as a war time leader, and the election was held after the war was over?
He was also deputy Prime Minister to Churchill and very important to the coalition Govt throughout, but no argument with him being omitted from this quiz. A more curious aspect is that Churchill's political downfall in WW1 was caused by the failure at Gallipoli, and the penultimate British officer to evacuate Gallipoli was...Major Clement Attlee.
Oh Kal! How could you? "...European theatre had been won. The Americans were still fighting the Japanese at that point...". What? and no-one else? Personal disclaimer here: an (English) uncle of mine served in the Royal Navy in the far East until beyond VJ-day. And regardless of military action, surely it is nevertheless extremely relevant that the British voted Attlee in, thus ejecting Churchill, during the war.
Your comments fall on deaf ears. And stubborn. and ill-informed. Did I say stubborn? How could personal knowledge be correct over wikipedia research and conclusions drawn from nothing more than reading the timeline?
The Japanese surrender was formally signed September 2. It was announced in August. What I said was correct, but I guess if you take into account that the war was realistically over after Nagasaki, August 9, then it becomes even more clear that Atlee had jack squat to do with it.
I could have put on Chiang Kai-Shek. But he appears already on my World Leaders of the Cold War quiz where I think he fits better. His role in WW2 wasn't as significant. I've got my reasons for putting Menzies on here as well. I feel like he did more of importance internationally, in relation to the war, than the other two. This is, admittedly, a pretty subjective opinion.
Could you also accept Wang Liqin for the Hideki Tōjō answer? It's common knowledge that Wang was the one making all the decisions, not Hideki. Hideki was just a puppet, Wang had the real power.
If it's such common knowledge then why, when I google Wang Liqin, is every result about a table tennis player? Never heard of the guy you mention, but Tojo is a huge figure in history. Anyway, was Wang Japanese prime minister? If not, then it wouldn't be a correct answer.
To add to previous comments above about why Attlee is irrelevant to the world wars:
The fact that the major powers most involved in the Pacific were Japan, Russia, the USA, and China aside... British India recaptured Axis-controlled territory in the Spring of 1945. Australia, which was sort of independent of the British Empire in 1945 and sort of not, participating in the Borneo campaign against Japanese forces there in July 1945. Attlee didn't become Prime Minister until July 26, 1945. He was about as important to the outcome of the World Wars as Donald Trump.
Thanks. I have several other world leaders quizzes that haven't been featured yet that are similar. If a couple more got featured I might make several more.
John Curtin should be added to Australia as he was PM from 1941-1945 during the darkest time of the war in the Pacific front and is one of the most popular PMs of all time because of his role as PM during WWII
Kerensky led the Russian government after the overthrow of the Czar in 1917, a very major figure in the country's remaining role in the war and its revolution.
What about John Curtain? Australian PM from 1941-1945 --- Said Halim Pasha, Ottoman Grand Vizier from 1913-1917. --- Tojo's successor and predecessors?
Curtin brought home the Australian troops from the Middle East to fight in New Guinea which caused the Japanese their first defeat in a land battle. To say that he was not relevant to the course WW2 took is ludicrous. Menzies on the other hand did nothing to influence the direction of the war and did whatever the British High Command asked him to do, yet you have included him in this quiz.
Actually it looks like the comment I put up best explaining the decision, along with the link to the article that laid out the rationale clearly, is gone now. Probably I was responding to some user who has since been purged, so their comments are deleted along with all follow-up comments. God damn this feature is so annoying.
Anyway, it's been years since I researched this quiz (thoroughly, thanks for your vote of confidence), and now I don't entirely remember all of the reasons why I decided to put Menzies on here. I know that Curtin defied Churchill, who ordered Australian troops to Burma. I know Curtin declared war on Japan. I'm sure from an Australian perspective, Curtin is painted as the more important of the two leaders as defying the British Empire to bring Australian troops back to defend Australia is probably seen as patriotic and defending the homeland given greater emphasis and importance than anything else that happened in the war. I believe that my choice was based mostly on Menzies' activities rallying sentiment and support against Germany and Japan internationally leading up to WW2 - Menzies was far more involved in politics in Europe than Curtin, he was even being talked about as a replacement for Churchill - not on the events at the end of '41 when he was out of office.
As for the New Guinea campaign, sure that was significant, but are you sure that Australian media doesn't play up the importance of Australian troops there (maybe in efforts to try and lionize Curtin as noble defender of the country)? This Wiki article, for example, suggests that as many as 97% of the Japanese casualties during the campaign came about as a result of being cut off by the US Navy.
If I ever decide to update or revise this quiz I will take another long look at it. But given that it's already been featured and on the front page I kind of doubt that this will ever happen. It was already changed multiple times before that. Sorry.
If Quizmaster ever asks me to revisit this quiz, perhaps to expand it, I'd be happy to add back on some of the Polish leaders and perhaps a few others. And I might consider either adding Curtin or changing Menzies to Curtin, if for no other reason then on the grounds that he seems to be more famous and more associated with WW2 than Menzies at least within Australia.
But I'm not going to touch the quiz until and unless Dan requests it. If he wants to re-feature an expanded, revised version, I'll take another look. I could fix the Wilhelm type-in at the same time if this occurs.
Where is the Philippines?? that time it was A Commonwealth Of The USA If I know its president Is Manuel L Quezon Then When Japanese Ruled It It Became A Puppet state of japan and The President Was Jose Laurel
You answered your own question. As a dominion of, first, the United States and later Japan, the leadership of the Philippines did not really have much to do with affecting the course of the wars.
Re: the Menzies/Curtin debate, aside from the fact that Curtin is more strongly associated with WWII, Menzies is also far more associated with his longer PMship throughout all of the 1950s and most of the '60s. I was stumped by this one because I genuinely couldn't recall who Curtin's predecessor was and was surprised to learn it was Menzies.
I know that. Must be an automatic type-in used by the site... probably QM assumed people might try to type in "the Kaiser" as an answer on some other quiz... ::shrug::
So, to the world and the war, Menzies was more significant? I read up on this a long time ago but I think I remember Bob spent a lot of effort getting international support for the Allied war effort. So maybe like you said, useful to the Empire. Seems like the other guy is more famous in Australia because he placed the defense of Australia as paramount.
I think I was going to change this and then forgot or got lazy and never updated the quiz.
I think that I meant to update this to include him but then I got distracted. I don't remember my original reasoning but I think it was something along the lines of thinking that while Curtin is more significant to Australia, Menzies did more that was relevant to the world in relation to the war. I posted an article before making that point, I think.
Good quizzes!
AbdulAziz ibn Saud
King Farouk of Egypt
Pancho Villa
Antonio Salandra
Pilsudski and Sikorski of Poland
give yourself extra credit in your mind if you knew any of them.
Genuinely sorry to disappoint.
Nevertheless, another good quiz by kalbahamut :)
Anyway, in short, Atlee was totally insignificant to the course of the world wars. He assumed office *after* war in the European theater had been won. The Americans were still fighting the Japanese at that point, but Atlee had nothing to do with it. Truman saw the war through to its ultimate end, and made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It makes no sense to equate the two.
It would be nice to see people being a bit more generous to Clement Attlee, a decent politician who sadly came to power at the wrong time. Nevertheless, a very good quiz.
The fact that the major powers most involved in the Pacific were Japan, Russia, the USA, and China aside... British India recaptured Axis-controlled territory in the Spring of 1945. Australia, which was sort of independent of the British Empire in 1945 and sort of not, participating in the Borneo campaign against Japanese forces there in July 1945. Attlee didn't become Prime Minister until July 26, 1945. He was about as important to the outcome of the World Wars as Donald Trump.
2. I don't know. Never read much about him.
3. Not nearly as significant or well-known as Tojo.
If Quizmaster ever asks me to revisit this quiz, perhaps to expand it, I'd be happy to add back on some of the Polish leaders and perhaps a few others. And I might consider either adding Curtin or changing Menzies to Curtin, if for no other reason then on the grounds that he seems to be more famous and more associated with WW2 than Menzies at least within Australia.
But I'm not going to touch the quiz until and unless Dan requests it. If he wants to re-feature an expanded, revised version, I'll take another look. I could fix the Wilhelm type-in at the same time if this occurs.
I had absolutely no idea who the Ottoman leader was, I just knew many of them held the title "Pasha".
I think I was going to change this and then forgot or got lazy and never updated the quiz.