Quote Originally Posted by RonnieBird View Post
Well you're right that historical significance and greatness aren't the same thing, and there are different applications to the word "great", but when we talk of great men we usually define that in terms of the longevity of their fame,( or infamy) and the lasting effect of their lives upon the course of history.
In fact you choose a poor example in Fred West because no one except perhaps particularly learned criminologists will have heard of him in 50 years - any more than we remember Victorian murderers. Fred West killed some people, but didn't effect history.

Napoleon was regarded in his time and for a while afterwards as badly as Hitler is today - a cruel genocidal maniac who wanted to invade and subdue half the world, yet at this point he is generally regarded as a great man because the rights and wrongs of his actions and the opinions of those who liked and disliked him have passed into the mists of time and been forgotten.

I'm afraid to tell you that the same will happen with Hitler too. Future generations will look at what he did and didn't do, and pass very quickly over his inhumanity, which will not seem tangible to them. As I said earlier, History is neutral you see.

By the way, I hope you don't mind me asking, but didn't you used to post as Viscount Jackie Pallow on the Norfolk Widfowlers Message Board ?
Yes, well spotted Sir Jim, Jackie here. History is never neutral: chronology is. You may be wrong about Fred in 50 years; many people will recall the exploits of Jack the Ripper without being contemporaries. I would argue that Fred West certainly affected the personal history of some unfortunate families in the Gloucester area.