Does Stalin really belong in the game?

[caketastydelish]

Stalin was a cruel leader, who was as cruel, if not more, than Hitler. Remember that around 6 million innocent people were killed (mainly Jews) in Nazi Germany. And that was a cruel, horrible atrocity. Don't get me wrong.

But did you know that 18 MILLION innocent people died in Russia under Stalin? (he killed Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, blacks, and people that opposed the government). We don't learn much about the Russian atrocities in World War II in school. This is because the victors write the history. The Russians won.

I am not trying to imply that the Germans were good and the Russians were evil, I'm trying to imply they both were. Heck, even the United States did a few bad things (although not nearly as bad as what Germany and Russia did).

For example, we put Japanese Americans in relocation camps.

Anyway, I'm getting a little off subject. The point I'm trying to make is, should Stalin really be in the game? Someone that is largely responsible for the deaths of 18 million people? There are so many other great Russian rulers, so why him?

What do you think?

 

[Sonereal]

If anything, they should add Hitler as well. Not that I like him or Stalin, but they were both very important to world history, especially Stalin. Stalin and Lenin kinda help set off the Cold War

 

[SpiritWolf]

I think if you went back to the time of some of the other leaders (Genghis for example), you could say similar things about their cruelty.

 

[caketastydelish]

If anything, they should add Hitler as well. Not that I like him or Stalin, but they were both very important to world history, especially Stalin. Stalin and Lenin kinda help set off the Cold War

I don't know about that. Civilization is a great game, with great leaders. Does this masterpiece of a game, that has rulers such as Abraham Lincoln, Alexander the Great, George Washington, and Winston Churchill really need to be alongside those evil rulers? Hitler and Stalin are not even in the same category as the ones I just mentioned. They don't deserve to be in a game with such great leaders.

 

[caketastydelish]

I think if you went back to the time of some of the other leaders (Genghis for example), you could say similar things about their cruelty.

Good point. They need to take out Genghis as well.

 

[Ceritoglu]

Should your political and ethical criticisms of Stalin's reign impact on whether he's included or not? I really don't think so.

I don't think influential leaders should be phased out simply because they don't conform to whatever standards of moral and political acceptability one applies. If one is to apply that standard, Victoria (for her exploitative imperialism), Napoleon (for his destructive warmongering) & Washington (for exploiting slaves) could also thus be designated 'morally improper' for inclusion (and these are only a few, select examples).

Leaders have comitted (by modern values) immoral, exploitative & reprehensible acts throughout history...if you look for the ones which pass whatever standards of political correctness you support, you'll end up missing out most of the most influential leaders in history.

Ultimately what concerns me is the gameplay. Including droves of peaceful, 'builder-type' leaders might be more morally pallatable for you - but a game full of peaceniks would be just too much of a pushover.

For me, a leader should be selected for civ based on their impact on their civilisation. Based on that, you'd be hard-pushed to argue Stalin was an insignificant ruler in Russia's history.

 

[lovett]

I don't know about that. Civilization is a great game, with great leaders. Does this masterpiece of a game, that has rulers such as Abraham Lincoln, Alexander the Great, George Washington, and Winston Churchill really need to be alongside those evil rulers? Hitler and Stalin are not even in the same category as the ones I just mentioned. They don't deserve to be in a game with such great leaders.

Churchill would have been nothing without Hitler....


As for Stalin and Genghis, although they killed shocking numbers of people, on a geopolitical level both did amazing things for their country. Both were far more successful then Alexander the great, for example (And lets not forget his war atrocities too).

 

[caketastydelish]

Churchill would have been nothing without Hitler....


As for Stalin and Genghis, although they killed shocking numbers of people, on a geopolitical level both did amazing things for their country. Both were far more successful then Alexander the great, for example (And lets not forget his war atrocities too).

Well, you got me there. But Alexander the Great did not do Genocide. (so many Genghis belongs in the game as well). I do not consider a ruler "evil" if he expanded his territory. Well, it would be by modern standards, but it wasn't as bad of a thing in the ancient times.

 

[Molybdeus]

It isn't about leaders being cruel, it's about leaders being effective. To wit:

Catherine the Great had her husband murdered so she could take control of the country. Churchill was extremely racist and believed that aboriginals deserved to die if they could not adequately defend themselves. Charlemagne converted europe to Christianity with the sword, and heathens were not dealt with lightly. Cyrus the Great, despite being a generally benevolent dictator, sometimes massacred those who rebelled against him. And those are just the "C" leaders.

Stalin, despite his paranoia and barbarism, built Russia into a superpower.

 

[caketastydelish]

Should your political and ethical criticisms of Stalin's reign impact on whether he's included or not? I really don't think so.

I don't think influential leaders should be phased out simply because they don't conform to whatever standards of moral and political acceptability one applies. If one is to apply that standard, Victoria (for her exploitative imperialism), Napoleon (for his destructive warmongering) & Washington (for exploiting slaves) could also thus be designated 'morally improper' for inclusion (and these are only a few, select examples).

Leaders have comitted (by modern values) immoral, exploitative & reprehensible acts throughout history...if you look for the ones which pass whatever standards of political correctness you support, you'll end up missing out most of the most influential leaders in history.

Ultimately what concerns me is the gameplay. Including droves of peaceful, 'builder-type' leaders might be more morally pallatable for you - but a game full of peaceniks would be just too much of a pushover.

For me, a leader should be selected for civ based on their impact on their civilisation. Based on that, you'd be hard-pushed to argue Stalin was an insignificant ruler in Russia's history.

All of George Washington's slaves were set free after he died. Victoria did not do Genocide. She expanded the British empire. While her human rights were less than perfect, don't get me wrong, she wasn't anywhere near as bad as Stalin or Hitler. She never did Genocide. As for Napolean? I would call him flat stupid more than evil. What he was really after was England. I want to invade England. Now I could be logical and simply invade England to acomplish that, OR I could invade Russia! Whats the first thing that comes to your mind when you thing of England? Russia of coarse!

Anyways, while Napolean did lead his country to war many times simply for selfish territory expansion, I still say he wasn't even half as evil as Hitler or Stalin. Yes, tons of leaders are filled with flaws, and less than perfect to say the least.

But there should be SOME level of decency, and Stalin and Hitler don't meet them.

 

[Sonereal]

Like what others have said. What leaders go into the game shouldn't be about whether they were "good" or "evil". But how influential and important they were to history. Isabella had hundreds (thousands I think) killed in the Inquistion. She's here.

Of course adding a leader because of a genocide would be stupid, but Stalin here's is because how he and other's like him evantually shaped Russia into the modern and powerful nation it is now.

 

[caketastydelish]

It isn't about leaders being cruel, it's about leaders being effective. To wit:

Catherine the Great had her husband murdered so she could take control of the country. Churchill was extremely racist and believed that aboriginals deserved to die if they could not adequately defend themselves. Charlemagne converted europe to Christianity with the sword, and heathens were not dealt with lightly. Cyrus the Great, despite being a generally benevolent dictator, sometimes massacred those who rebelled against him. And those are just the "C" leaders.

Stalin, despite his paranoia and barbarism, built Russia into a superpower.

You have a point about Catherine. But at least her murder was one person, and not millions! I have not heard any churchill quotes saying anything like that. Please give me a source. You are so wrong about Cyrus, I don't even know where to begin. Give me one historical source saying this. Are you just making this up? Seriously, Cyrus was a role model for human rights.

Charlemagne only did that beause the Moslems did the same thing. It was a "holy" war between them. They both killed each other.

 

[warpus]

Hitler can't be in the game for obvious reasons; he is the current personification of evil.

Putting him in the game would lower sales because of 1. the Jewish factor and 2. the German factor.

 

[caketastydelish]

Like what others have said. What leaders go into the game shouldn't be about whether they were "good" or "evil". But how influential and important they were to history. Isabella had hundreds (thousands I think) killed in the Inquistion. She's here.

Of course adding a leader because of a genocide would be stupid, but Stalin here's is because how he and other's like him evantually shaped Russia into the modern and powerful nation it is now.

Peter the Great is responsible for that just as much. Why Stalin rather than him?

 

[caketastydelish]

Hitler can't be in the game for obvious reasons; he is the current personification of evil.

Putting him in the game would lower sales because of 1. the Jewish factor and 2. the German factor.

Hitler shouldn't be in the game. My point is, Stalin shouldn't ethier. And by the way, Stalin killed Jews too. So why is it ok for Stalin to do so, but not Hitler? This anti-semitism should not be tolerated, and in my opinion nethier one of them deserves to be in the game.

 

[Sonereal]

Ok, adding Hitler would be stupid unless there's a WW2 mod. But taking Stalin out is different, yes he killed Jews, but so did a lot of leaders throughout history. Hitler did it on such a large scale, it was like an industrial killing machine. Plus, Hitler was aiming for an "Ayran" world, Stalin was aiming for the spread of socialism and wasn't as racist about it.
But really, if you don't like Stalin, don't play him. Is it really such a big deal? Hitler was evil, so was Stalin, but comparing the two isn't really fair.

Why not Peter? I don't know, why not both. Seems to me that Stalin did things that turned Russia into a powerhouse that is still here. Unlike Hitler, which lasted at most, 15 years. Again, Isabella was anti-semetic too, so why not remove her?

 

[Arabian Archer]

well you kinda raise a weird issue here, ANY leader(except maybe Ghandi)
had something to do with killing people, in varying numbers

Where is the bar? Where's the max number a leader must have killed in order for him to apply as too evil for this game?

The thing is: It's NOT about numbers, it's about IMPACT on TODAY's view
Hitler killed millions, Ghengis killed millions
Yet public views about them vary greatly, this is why the game develepors weighed how do-able certain leaders were.

And it turns out to be that Hitler would just be unacceptable for, you guessed it, THE PUBLIC VIEW/OPINION. Also many German's are ashamed of what the man who used to be the leader of the Germans did, whilst many Mongols are still proud that they had once ruled half of the world because of their great khan.

That's the difference, public opinion, and that;s what the develepors sought to please.
You cant just say a number of killed people and say that the bar, that's the limit, this varies from person to person.

personally, I would allow any leader to be implemented, for me it's just a game, you don;t actually have to play with Hitler, you can just include him in your game to crush him if you want "


EDIT: As a side note: leaving all the "bad guys" isn't historiccaly correct either, wich makes it not very fun for some..

 

[Willem]

Charlemagne only did that beause the Moslems did the same thing. It was a "holy" war between them. They both killed each other.

Charlemagne had nothing to do with the Crusades, he was around long before they ever happened.

 

[Sonereal]

I just that Hitler and Nazi related material is illegal in Germany. So, adding Hitler into the game would kill sales, lol.

You're right Archer, it's about public opinion. If its too negative, than no. The only people that still like Hitler is white surpremacist or anti-semetic groups. The people loved Stalin (from what I heard).

I wouldn't mind if he was in this game anyway. Thank someone for History in the Making mod.

 

[Willem]

This anti-semitism should not be tolerated, and in my opinion nethier one of them deserves to be in the game.

I guess the Roman civilization can't be in your game at all then since both of the Caesars were resonpisible for killing and persecuting Jews. Who cares what contribution they made to the world at large eh? Just as long as they abide by your sense of morality.