Counterpoint: strong men were responsible for both world wars, and in fact every war ever. Hundreds of millions dead, two sincere attempts at self-extermination by the human race. Good times.
I would argue that weak men (with big egos) sent young men to war, giving them the hard times and the fortitude and determination to make good times for their children (boomers).
Stalin was weak? Mao? This sounds like a very odd definition of weak, cut to fit the argument rather than working with the facts at hand.
Both won wars and ruled over hundreds of millions or even billions. They can't be brushed away, nor any of the other dictators who perpetuated all those historical horrors.
Based on Lenin’s depiction of Stalin, he was paranoid, anxious and easily angered/upset. These certainly are characteristics of weak people. Just because people have power to do what they like doesn’t mean they are strong.
I get the impression that he worked tirelessly to exude the idea that he was strong. Much like Putin or Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow
I will admit that I do not know much of anything about Mao
Adopting the term (man) for the human species to refer to males is a common feature of Romance and Germanic languages, but is not found in most other European languages (Slavic čelověkъ vs. mǫžь, Greek ἄνθρωπος vs. άνδρας, Finnish ihminen vs. mies etc.).