caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
Actually, there has been some really intelligent discussion on this thread.
Does Stalin really belong in the game?
- Thread starter caketastydelish
- Start date
Actually, there has been some really intelligent discussion on this thread.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
Let me as you this. Was Hitler evil? Was Hitler important to history? The answer is obviously yes to both questions!
But should Hitler be in the game? NO!!!!!!! And since Stalin, IMO was just as cruel as Hitler, he shouldn't be in the game either.
I don't care if hitler is in the game, in my opinon he should be, hitler was put out of the game for a simple reason the game would lose sales, if it were solely based on importance to history then he would be in. Stalin's atrocities yet large would not pull as much of an outpouring the primary market for this game which is the United States mainland.
WICKLC1
King
Stalin is just not as infamous as Hitler is. His atrocities are not as well known as Hitler's, so people don't care if he's in the game. On the other hand, Hitler is more well known for being an evil dictator than anyone else, so people would not accept him being part of any form of entertainment.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
People need to be more well educated about Stalin's atrocities then. As for Hitler? If he's wanted bad enough someone can always make a mod for him.
I actually had written "Same for Montezuma, but he's the only Aztec leader whose name we know" but then I remembered that Montezuma I united the Aztec empire and was pretty impressive, and the dolt who Cortez wiped the floor with was Monty II. So I assume Montezuma I is the leader in the game.
Montezuma was from a preliterate society that had never encountered people who were extremely different than the Native Mexicans, who had horses and high technology. He'd never heard factual accounts of people living beyond the seas. He had no frame of reference other than mythological for these strange looking people with their magical beasts and power from beyond the known world.
WICKLC1
King
Yes, it would be nice if people actually learned things.
Leaders who are significant to history should be included no matter how horrible they were. We can't just forget them because they did unpleasant things.
The Great Depression ended everywhere. Hitler obviously possessed political skills, and appointed extremely good generals (above all Rommel), but when he made strategic decisions himself (invading Russia with winter approaching and an unresolved war with Britain, not supplying his Eastern Front troops with winter equipment, bombing London instead of continuing the highly effective attacks on RAF airfields, declaring war on the US, trying to defend all the beaches of France, not taking Malta) they were, fortunately, stupid and disastrous.
WICKLC1
King
The depression ended in most places due to different reasons, in Germany it was mostly because of what Hitler did.
At the height of Nazi power, he controlled most of Europe and North Africa.
Like Napoleon, he is remembered for his loses. Napoleon is rememered for Waterloo, Hitler is remembered for losing the Eastern Front and going downhill from there.
No matter what, he is a significant historical figure. He is arguably the most recognizable leader of the 20th century.
No one suggested he wasn't significant. But he was a moron, he lost, and within 15 years of his rise to power his shattered and defeated nation was doing its best to pretend he'd never existed.
WICKLC1
King
He was not a moron, but a few bad decisions he made did lead to Germany's defeat.
Napoleon did the same thing. He was not a moron but a few bad decisions led to France's defeat.
Many leaders lost in the long run, but were great and significant leaders nonetheless. For example, Hitler, Napoleon, and Hannibal.
Hitler made more than a few bad decisions, and while I've agreed and no one has denied that he's significant I've yet to see a case made that he's great.
Hannibal technically should be a Great General, not a Civilization leader, but since he's the only Carthaginian most people have heard of he was chosen for the role. In some sort of regulated system with set criteria for leaders, Napoleon should probably be a general too. But Napoleon shaped France for centuries to come, and is a French hero. Germany's response to Hitler has been to try to undo and forget the effects he had.
WICKLC1
King
If he had won the battles of El Alamein, Moscow, and Stalingrad he would have won WW2. By great, I meant, at the time, he was very powerful and seemed unstoppable.
Hannibal and Napoleon were the leaders of their countries, not just armies.
Napoleon's only long term legacy was to end the lawlessness and disorder of revolutionary France and to make some changes to the military.
WICKLC1
King
Yes, he did leave behind a code of laws in the countires he conquered.
The Napoleonic Code is still extremely influential. It was a foundation of modern law. Until recently French was the international language of law. And Napoleon is still revered by many French (whose military history since is admittedly short of glory). His relatives came to power by virtue of his name. Compare that to Germany kicking over all traces of Hitler.
Also, while Hannibal did lead Carthage after the war, his time in politics was short and unimpressive compared to his time as head of the army.
Grimz101
King
Most of the points about hitler and stalin seem recycled and pointed at before.. There is only one way to settle THIS!!
ONE TWO THREE FOUR
I DECLARE A THUMB WAR
ONE TWO THREE FOUR
I DECLARE A THUMB WAR
Most of the points about hitler and stalin seem recycled and pointed at before.. There is only one way to settle THIS!!
ONE TWO THREE FOUR
I DECLARE A THUMB WAR
I lost! How about we go best two out of three? Next round, two-by-fours at dawn.
