Stalin in Civ?

[rah]

That's probably the best one I've heard OMT.
Winners write history.
Personally, I don't really care.
I just find it funny that people would object to having him in the game and not object to others that were just as bad IMO.

[fed1943]

May be because Hitler was German (or Austrich) while Stalin was

Russian and Mao was Chinese.

(If not enough clear, just think of one dictator that ruled the States;

what a horrible man).

Best regards,

[rah]

That wasn't clear at all.

[Mr. Lucky]

Stalin was NOT Russian but Georgian. Just one of the many reasons why he shouldn't be included. It is hard to draw an 'evil' line and exclude leaders who cross it, but, leaders whose primary contribution to history was murdering millions of their own people have probably crossed it.

Admittedly there are a few reasons why he should as well, it's hard to argue that he wasn't a player on the world stage, for example.

That said, in my opinion, since there are plenty of Russian Czars that would make fine choices there is no reason to select a non-Russian Soviet as a Russian leaderhead.

Mr. Lucky

[Strudo]

Here's my opinion. Without Stalin, there are 23 leaders with names starting with the first half of the alphabet, and only 11 with the end half. Adding Hitler would further tip the balance towards the first half of the alphabet, so they needed a leader whos name started with a letter N or above. Those who sugested Lenin, Benito, Hideki and Hirohito would be faced with a similar problem as L and B are in the first half along with H.

Of course Voldemort from Harry Potter would suit the alphabet balance equation. And since H is out, there would be no Harry Potter leader to stop him.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
I think Hitler needs to be recognized, as the murdering bastard he was. Civ needs to reflect the course of human history. Genocidal dictators are part of it, as are great artists and grand monuments. Civ4 isn't complete without the arguably worst thing humanity has produced. Nor would it be without the best, whatever that would be.

There's a cool concept. Have unhappy citizens generate "Great Bastard" points and when a city gets a certain number, a Great Bastard like Hitler is generated and roams around your empire eliminating minority religions and starting wars with your neighbors, and you can't do anything to stop it until a few turns are over and they kill themselves.

[Dis]

I don't really need Hitler in the game. Who really cares.

But I miss the lack of a WW2 (europe) scenario. I think the only reason they didn't make one for warlords is because they knew they'd have to include Hitler.

Although it makes me wonder. I can't barely remember the ww2 scenario that shipped with the original civ2 game. Was Hitler in that? Who was the leader of the germans in that scenario? I can't remember. But even 10 years later, things are much more PC than they were then.

[JackRudd]

Hitler was the leader of the Axis powers in the Civ2 WWII scenario, yes.

[sparkyal]

I think my favorite reason was the alphabet leader.

ok, about Stalin, which is what this post is about. Stalin, like him or hate him was one of the major reasons that Russia won WWII. He took the USSR, which was pretty backward in the late 1930's and made it a superpower. That is huge! did he kill 20 million od his own people to do it? yup, he did. Is that horrible? More then horrible. did he impact the course of history? Yes. Did he in the end help the USSR? Yes (this is the test that Hitler fails).

So, while I completely agree that he was evil (maybe even more then Hitler?), his impact on on world politics can be traced all the way up to 1986 when the last of his followers lead the USSR.

As for Lenin, while maybe not as bad as Stalin, he also had no qualms about killing people in his way. He actually suppoerted Stalin coming into power except at the very end. Lenin finally did say that Stalin had to be stopped, but it was too little too late.

now, who do the Russian people like? they like Lenin a lot more then Stalin. Only the very old still look at Stalin as a hero. (Sorry if that offends you who were in Poland or Ukraine).

Ok, it was also asked that a Russian respond. While I live in russian, I'm not a Russian. So, if there is a Russian on the board, it would be great to answer. If you type it in Russian I can translate.

sparky

[AmericanCitizen]

Wow, such a serious discussion! Well, here is my opinion:

Stalin was an evil man, of course. But he really impacted modern world history (without him, I know its cliche, but Germany might have won World War 2) in a big way. Looking at the other leaders, it seems more to me that they are included based on whether they impacted history, not whether they were good people.

The difference is mainly one of memory and perspective. Many of the leaders that were included (such as Kahn) were and are considered to be evil or have done evil things, but most of us don't really care - he's more just a cartoon on a computer screen than someone who killed many people.

I would have preferred, if they wanted a leader from the Soviet Union, for them to have included Lenin instead, but to be honest Stalin doesn't bother me all that much.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
Hitler lost. Stalin and Mao won, that's the difference.

Exactly.

[Dis]

Hitler was winning for a short time.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Dis
Hitler was winning for a short time.

Exactly. For a short time. He didn't win.

[Nugog]

Man!

Why do we have to have these ongoing conversations on this topic?

Stalin & Mao are fine for civ.

Hitler is not.

Get the point!

Will people still be discussing this when Hitler is not in Civ5?

Sheesh - move on people!

[rah]

Opinion is just that, an opinion.
If stalin & mao and a host of others are fine for civ, Hitler should be also.
Get the point.