Stalin in Civ?

[Nugog]

Originally posted by 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.

[Blaupanzer]

1. Hitler did not expand Germany or German power, because he lost WW II.

2. Hitler did not have any long-term positive effects on Germany, except to serve as a bad example.

3. Games with Nazi options legally cannot be marketed in Germany, a big source of Civ buyers.

4. Having Hitler as an option will generate a LOT of bad publicity. Folks who get animated about him are not generally nearly as animated about Stalin, Mao, or other modern leaders.

Those reasons, in reverse order of importance, are most likely why Hitler is not in the game. If you personally want to do a WW II scenario, feel free to gin up Tojo and Hitler leaderheads for that purpose. Otherwise, live with it.

As to Stalin, several of us have noted that you don't have to play as him, and may feel free to kick his buttocks if he shows up in your SP games. He was bad, but he did expand Russia, and he has certainly had a lasting effect on modern history (Russian industrialization, nuclear arms race, cold war, KGB/whatever its called now).

As to nationality ("He was Georgian"), we have several other leaders like that -- Napoleon (Corsican) and Alexander (Macedonian) come to mind quickly. As I understand it, he sold his soul to the czarist police in Georgia, executed all the buyers in Russia. He didn't raise Georgia into a power sufficient to overcome Germany, he raised the whole lot of the republics, the USSR (nee CCCP). He fits my criteria as a great (if terrible) leader much better than Hitler.

[Mr. Lucky]

1) and 2) are the same point with the same rebuttal: It's true of many of the leaders(Napoleon) and thus it is not a disqualifying point.


3) and 4) are the same point and have no rebuttal, they are exactly correct.

In the real world, fascism is seen as 'bad' by most everyone in the West. Communism, not so much. You can argue that this shouldn't be true (I would), but it is true. The CIV games didn't invent this, they just reflect it. Therefore:

Hitler, Mussolini--OUT
Stalin, Mao--IN

It's may be difficult to distinguish the relative morality of these leaders (Stalin and Mao were far worse 'by the numbers'), but it's pretty easy to distinguish popular opinion, including, as was mentioned, actual laws in certain countries.

Mr. Lucky

[rah]

Again just a victim of PC.
It's the only excuse that I'll buy.
The other arguements are weak when you consider some of the other leaders. .
A german version - hitler would resolve illegalites.
Just another example of wussification for PC's sake.
It's sad. But again, that's just my opinion and has as much impact as any others.

[Zirk]

I am totally against Stalin OR Roosevelt being in Civ 4. Sure, they're important figures historically, and I enjoy playing with them in the game, but neither were great leaders. Plus, it's terribly biased.

You can't make any good argument against Hitler being in the game that wouldn't also apply to Stalin, except that it wouldn't be marketable in Germany. So, it comes down to money being worth more than truth or accuracy.

The best solution would be to replace Stalin with Lenin and Roosevelt with Abraham Lincoln. They're better leaders anyway.

[Zirk]

Originally posted by Mr. Lucky

It's may be difficult to distinguish the relative morality of these leaders (Stalin and Mao were far worse 'by the numbers'), but it's pretty easy to distinguish popular opinion, including, as was mentioned, actual laws in certain countries.

Mr. Lucky

Whose opinion are we taking into account? I'm sure if you asked a lot of eastern europeans, they'd say they aren't too fond of communism.

Why don't we just remove the Arabic civilizations? I mean, a lot of westerners aren't on the best of terms with the Arab world. So let's just ignore that they ever existed! That's how absolutely ludicrous your argument is.

[Baray]

haven't every leader i Civ 4 done something bad (except Ghandi, of course)? I dont think Napoleon , Caesar or Alexander were angels.
And when i play i'm not so preaceloving!

[Stuffe]

Hitler is not in the game because he only had the power in a very limited amount of time. He succeeded in conquering most of Europe yes, but taking on the task of conquering Russia (Stalin at this time) with its hard winters, enormous land mass and almost unlimited supply of men was a really bad idea. Also having the Japs attack USA wasn't the smartest move either. Hitler's easy victories in Europe made him think he could do anything. He was not a good leader, in any particular way.

Stalin even though he was ruthless, repelled the German invasion and although it isn't talked about as much as it is talked about how evil he was, Stalin actually converted Russia from a set back farming nation to a more industrialised country. You might say Stalin pop rushed forges in the city . (sorry if i offended any one)

I've said many times they added the wrong leader for Russia. Russia didn't even need a new leader, but Lenin would have been much better. I can't remember where it was said, but in respose to one of my posts someone said "Lenin=good ideas, Stalin=corruption of good ideas".

Although Lenin successfully led the revolution, one of his first acts was to surrender to the Germans in WW1 and he had to pay a HUGE amount of money. This was although the Germans were fighting almost ½ half the world
(Rusia, France, England (which controlled Canada, India, South Africa amongst others) and USA.
Shortly after the Russians had payed for peace, the Germans surrendered. But yes Lenin did not kill as many people as Stalin, but i do not think that is a criteria for being in civ.

This makes me wonder though, maybe happiness should play a much bigger part of the game score, as this is what most important thing for a country irl (in my opinion at least). Of cause you also need to be protected and stuff so you will not be overrun and can continue to be happy.

And another thing, in ww2 the germans did not have enough men to continue the fight, so in the end, they used boys and old people. Making a connection between population and how big a military you can support might be very interesting.
But that is another discussion.

[rah]

And Washington was president for how long?
There are also other leaders that were short timers.

[Stuffe]

I must admit i know little about him, maybe he was a poor leader, but he managed to kick some far superior English but. Infact WAY beond supirior. I think this is also why Mao is in the game, he fought the Japs and the Chinese republican army with skill. Although Mao is probably the bigest mass murder in all of history

[Stuffe]

I didn't say being the leader for a long time is a criteria, hitler just didn't do anything admirable. And its a lot better to stop being the leader because you stopped being elected, than it is to attack all the greater powers and have your ass kicked in 5 years

[Mr. Lucky]

Of course, many eastern europeans don't like Communism, they've experienced it.

That has nothing to do with the point that Communism receives MUCH more respect in the West then it deserves and certainly more than facismm. For example, there are active Communist parties in almost all European countries. Small parties, but frequently capable of winning parliamentary seats. When was the last time someone won an election as a Nazi, or a t?

Again, m is seen as wrong and in some places like Germany it's actually illegal to even promote it or play a game that features it's symbols. Communism is viewed as a respectable political viewpoint, despite, as you alluded to, it causing FAR more suffering for FAR more people.

Your 'point' about Arabs is infantile. There is no popular opinion or law that says all Arab symbols and people should be illegal. Plenty of people take issue with the ( t)viewpoints some Arab people or nations currently espouse. There is no connection with whether the entire culture should be excluded.

The points about not having enough years 'in-office', or being defeated have already been de-bunked. Napoleon, Washington, Genghis, all short-timers or losers or both. Not a disqualifying point.

The point "all leaders did bad things". Of course. However, Stalin and Mao(Communists both) are both primarily known for millions of THEIR OWN PEOPLE. That makes them unique in CIV. Other leaders who did bad things did them mostly to other 'leaders' people so that they could expand their nations power. You can say sometimes that they were wrong, but that's basically what nations do, expand their power at the expense of other nations power. Stalin and Mao killed their own people so that they could expand/cement their personal power or that of the Party. That is not what nations do. It shouldn't be trivialized by saying 'everyone did bad things'. No one did what they did.

Mr. Lucky.

[Stuffe]

Of course, many eastern europeans don't like Communism, they've experienced it.

Countries in Europe that have experienced fascism:
Spain, Italy, Germany and all the German occupied territories.

Countries in Europe that have experienced communism:
Half of Germany and half of the German occupied territories.

[Mr. Lucky]

Stuffe,

What's your point? Zirk said many eastern europeans don't like communism and I agreed. Do you take issue with that?

Mr. Lucky

p.s. you left out a lot of former communist countries

[Stuffe]

My point was that maybe that's why the respect communism more than Fascism. But you are right, its kind of irrelevant, I just couldn't help it. I love discussing history, its my big thing

Which former communist countries did i miss?
Half of the Germany and half of the German occupied territories went into the Soviet Union.
Ok Paris had communism for a week after the french revolution, but that does'nt count.