Persons of the Decade.

[12th Doctor]

1900's - TR
1910's - Wilhelm II
1920's - Henry Ford
1930's - Adolf Hitler
1940's - Winston Churchill
1950's - Ike Eisenhower
1960's - Lyndon Johnson
1970's - tie; Richard Nixon & Ruhollah Khomeini
1980's - tie; John Paul II & Ronald Reagan (Gorbachev was a reaction to them, not a tone setter)
1990's - tie; Saddam Hussein, Newt Gingrich, Tony Blair, Slobodan Milošević
2000's - Osama Bin Laden (though if you ask me again in a few years, I might change my mind

[12th Doctor]

1900's - TR
1910's - Wilhelm II
1920's - Henry Ford
1930's - Adolf Hitler
1940's - Winston Churchill
1950's - Ike Eisenhower
1960's - Lyndon Johnson
1970's - tie; Richard Nixon & Ruhollah Khomeini
1980's - tie; John Paul II & Ronald Reagan (Gorbachev was a reaction to them, not a tone setter)
1990's - tie; Saddam Hussein, Newt Gingrich, Tony Blair, Slobodan Milošević
2000's - Osama Bin Laden (though if you ask me again in a few years, I might change my mind

Hilariously contradictory. Not that that's a bad thing.

Not really, Churchill defined the problem of Nazism long before others even recognized it, and he did the same thing with communism.

Gorby wasn't a leader in any true sense of the word.  He was picked because the people were starting to demand perestroika, he merely granted them what they wanted.  When the Soviet Union was collapsing, he did everything he could to try to hold it together, and failed.  He wasn't opposed to communism.  He did what he did because he hoped that, by loosening the restrictions of the old order, he could preserve it, because people would naturally see what was "good" about communism and disassociate it from the "bad".  He wasn't prepared to accept the notion that communism was inherently bad, which was the conclusion that most Russian people had already reached.  He only gets credit for anything because he is falsely perceived as a "peaceful" figure, as opposed to Reagan, who was a "terrible warmonger".

[12th Doctor]

What makes Churchill and Gorby different in their "reactiveness" is that Churchill saw what was coming, bucked the trends of the time, and successfully set a new course for history.  Gorby was put in place because of what had already happened, reacted to the trends of history, and unsuccessfully tried to hold back progress.

[12th Doctor]

1900's - TR
1910's - Wilhelm II
1920's - Henry Ford
1930's - Adolf Hitler
1940's - Winston Churchill
1950's - Ike Eisenhower
1960's - Lyndon Johnson
1970's - tie; Richard Nixon & Ruhollah Khomeini
1980's - tie; John Paul II & Ronald Reagan (Gorbachev was a reaction to them, not a tone setter)
1990's - tie; Saddam Hussein, Newt Gingrich, Tony Blair, Slobodan Milošević
2000's - Osama Bin Laden (though if you ask me again in a few years, I might change my mind

Hilariously contradictory. Not that that's a bad thing.

Not really, Churchill defined the problem of Nazism long before others even recognized it, and he did the same thing with communism.

Gorby wasn't a leader in any true sense of the word.  He was picked because the people were starting to demand perestroika, he merely granted them what they wanted.  When the Soviet Union was collapsing, he did everything he could to try to hold it together, and failed.  He wasn't opposed to communism.  He did what he did because he hoped that, by loosening the restrictions of the old order, he could preserve it, because people would naturally see what was "good" about communism and disassociate it from the "bad".  He wasn't prepared to accept the notion that communism was inherently bad, which was the conclusion that most Russian people had already reached.  He only gets credit for anything because he is falsely perceived as a "peaceful" figure, as opposed to Reagan, who was a "terrible warmonger".

But Chirchill would never have been anyone important (and I mean on a world scale) without Chamberlain and Hitler. I agree that a change was inevitable after Brezhnev and Andropov and Chernenko (the whole process has reminded me of a papal conclave), but Gorbachev was an important figure in his own right. Imagine if Volodymyr Schcherbytsky had been elevated. Things would have turned out very differently.

And I bear too great an affinity for Gorbachevism for you to badmouth his work.

What does it matter that Churchill needed Hitler?  Everyone needs somebody to be somebody.  The real question is who set the course, and whose vision survived.  Gorbachev's vision didn't last beyond 1991.  Winston Churchill's vision lived on... through Reagan... and beyond.

To prove my point, I invite you to watch this.  It's part of Schama's A History of Britain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ0O8NAVzTo

[12th Doctor]

7 of my 11 were Americans, and Hitler was on twice.  America has been important this century.

AMERICA F**K YEAH!!!