Does Stalin really belong in the game?

[TheMeInTeam]

Since this forum seems to allow discussion about Hitler, let's see. Hitler should be added for coherence, since Stalin and both Khans are in. I suppose Shaka wasn't nice either. Oh, and don't forget Mao of course.
The point is, violence is part of this world. But people are stupid, and would cry foul if a recent, non-alied, popularly portrayed as the paradigm of evil such as Hitler were included in the game. The developers, the publishers can't allow that. The relatively exagerated reputation Hitler has today is mostly a combination of war propaganda and ignorant masses, that is, there were many contemporaries rulers as bloody or even more than him, such as Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin, if we stick to the most known ones.
As for the scale of the depravity, I would say that killing every single person in Bagdah during the Mongol conquest surpasses anything those other rulers ever did. Killing some for specific reasons, causing some collateral damage, making examples out of the most vocal is one thing but killing everyone doesn't fit. If we can trust history, that is. Who knows if such things really happened that way.

In the end, this subject reminds me of how people are stupid. Truly, the average voter, the village idiot having the same weight as Aristotle... well. Fortunately, these elections are mostly make believe, and those who ever worked with or were involved in politics know what I'm hinting.

Hilter ruled for a short time and got his face kicked in during a war. Germany already has multiple leaders for the civ that enjoyed far more successful (from an ethical and more importantly goal-evaluated) and longer reigns. The leaders you are comparing Hitler to were every bit as atrocious, but brought more to their civ than a lost war and functional loss of sovereignty for years.

HITLER WAS DEFEATED. He "had the leadership abilities of Dan Quale" or some such jazz.

If you want a 1 in 3 chance for germany to go nuts and declare on the world and get eliminated in a manner of a few turns in your games, mod it in.

 

[Comrade Alex]

In the end, this subject reminds me of how people are stupid. Truly, the average voter, the village idiot having the same weight as Aristotle... well.

Sounds like something Hitler himself would have said, except replace "Aristotle" with "Aryan males" and "village idiot" with [Jews/Slavs/Communists/Blacks/Catholics/November Criminals/Disabled people/Women/Friedrich Ebert]

The list is endless, really.

 

[ICNP]

What about Truman? Ordering the use of an Experimental Weapon on Civilians isn't cruel? However he fails to make it into civ while FDR is in...

Imperialism was a mixed Bag as far as I'm concerned. Looking at things like Rorke's Drift and African Imperialism (and all the problems it has caused today) are almost as bad as Hitler's "Final Solution". But the Europeans did give some Education to their imperial Properties. But they stole their sovereignty and imposed heavy taxes. You could almost say that Hitler's War helped to give freedom to those in imperial colonies. A small plus for Hitler but it is there.

 

[caketastydelish]

What about Truman? Ordering the use of an Experimental Weapon on Civilians isn't cruel? However he fails to make it into civ while FDR is in...

Imperialism was a mixed Bag as far as I'm concerned. Looking at things like Rorke's Drift and African Imperialism (and all the problems it has caused today) are almost as bad as Hitler's "Final Solution". But the Europeans did give some Education to their imperial Properties. But they stole their sovereignty and imposed heavy taxes. You could almost say that Hitler's War helped to give freedom to those in imperial colonies. A small plus for Hitler but it is there.

World war 2 was a catalyst at most for ending Imperialism.

 

[wilcoxchar]

So the fact that he worked them to death makes it any better? Killing people is still wrong. And besides, I said hitler is equally as evil, not lesser.

So? Qin Shi Huangdi killed over 1 million people forcing them to build the Great Wall. Should we remove the unifier of China because he killed people? No. Should we not include Isabella because she kicked all the Jews, Muslims, and Christianized Moors out of Spain? No. Sure, Stalin's dictatorial rule was the cause of the deaths of many millions of people, but he is the most well known founder of the Soviet Union and probably the most well known leader of the USSR as well. He effectively brought Russia from a third-world country to a first-world superpower. Leaders are considered for their impact on history and their importance in their respective time periods, and when you want a leader to represent the Soviet Union in a game, you're most likely to think of Stalin first.

 

[a4phantom]

Hilter ruled for a short time and got his face kicked in during a war. Germany already has multiple leaders for the civ that enjoyed far more successful (from an ethical and more importantly goal-evaluated) and longer reigns. The leaders you are comparing Hitler to were every bit as atrocious, but brought more to their civ than a lost war and functional loss of sovereignty for years.

HITLER WAS DEFEATED. He "had the leadership abilities of Dan Quale" or some such jazz.

If you want a 1 in 3 chance for germany to go nuts and declare on the world and get eliminated in a manner of a few turns in your games, mod it in.

I don't really care if Stalin's in or not, Russia has had many famous leaders, but even though he was a monster, his own country doesn't try to pretend he never existed.

 

[a4phantom]

Goodnight? It's lunchtime in MN. ...?

Anyway, frankly, I think Britain would have been better served to cut India (and Burma etc) loose, because of the war. I doubt Japan would have attacked them, not immediately anyway, because it would have been a respite for them, too. So, to a large extent, Churchill's policies in this regard may have been stupid.

However, we need to recognize that he may not have had a choice. Rulers do not rule in a vacuum.

Wodan

I'm in Korea.

And I agree about India and Burma, and that was suggested at the time, but Churchill said the colonies were not going to be lost on his watch. Once again, I consider Churchill the towering figure of the 20th century, and his failings do not tarnish the unique role he played in, you know, saving the world.

 

[zebomba2]

Sounds like something Hitler himself would have said, except replace "Aristotle" with "Aryan males" and "village idiot" with [Jews/Slavs/Communists/Blacks/Catholics/November Criminals/Disabled people/Women/Friedrich Ebert]

The list is endless, really.

Nah, that's just my way of supporting Tecnocracy/Plutocracy/Meritocracy rather than the kind of Democracy most people treat as the ultimate good. Fortunately, Democracy as most people think doesn't exist. Ever worked with political campaigns?
Don't think I'm alone in my mixed feelings on Democracy. Churchill for example has some nice quotes on this.

Replies for the other posts:
Now that makes me look bad since I'm going against the feelings of most people but since I play Devil's advocate pretty often... if we remove Stalin on the same basis on why Hitler never appeared in a Civ game (and he never appeared in pretty much any serious, mainstream game AFAIK) then most of those other leaders should go as well. Probably only Ghandi would remain, heh. If we are feeling generous, maybe Lincoln, Hatshepsut, Elizabeth too.

Let me make it clear, though. This isn't an ideological defense of Hitler. The point is he's IMO just one more person who managed to combine leadership, charisma, luck, and a big ego. In the past, ancestry mattered too but I digress. If you need to hear what he ever did, that's quite obvious. Despite losing after driving the world in the worst war ever seen, he led Germany from total chaos to military superpower in a decade. Pretty much the same or even better than those other leaders quoted did. You can read that in the Civilopedia even, for a start. The point is doing something good doesn't suddenly make a person beyond good and evil.
The real question is, why he is a villain, if other mass murderers are allowed to show up as leaders in a mainstream game? My answer is because people are stupid. I hope now you get what I mean.
Because IMO 80% of the leaders in the Civ series don't belong, unless we are supposed to play against them.

Picking on a few villains is dangerous, you see. We tend to lose sight of new dangers by clinging to old models of evil. We tend to miss new models of good that way, too.
One of the best comparisons I've ever heard was about the theoretical return of Jesus. Now I don't believe in religions but since everyone knows a bit about Christianity that's a good one. What if Jesus returned as a poor, hippie Black? Suppose he was born in America this time. One kiss on his cheek during a Civil Rights protest, say. He would have probably done even worse than his first coming, and that's because people are stupid and can't see beyond appearances.

Nowadays I don't really care about politics, discussions, ideology, that kind of thing. But you made me feel kinda bad playing a game featuring history's worst people, you know.

 

[Zomgmeister]

As a russian guy I believe I have to say something on subject.

While Stalin was paranoid and cruel monster, he definitely was not an absolute evil for country in general. Only for large percent of the people. He kicked Russia up from war-ravaged hungry agricultural broken empire up to world superpower. USA wasn't touched by WWII, while USSR's most important and developed western territories were occupied, and war losses were astounding - though under his leadership we gained an access to nuclear power, and after his death - to space flight, by inertion.

Downfall began much later, and it's only after 2000 or even later Russia began to grow up stronger again, under leadership of Putin, who is often compared with Stalin in western media. This fact amuses us russians, because they don't have that much in common. Well, they both are human males with strong willpower and commandeering tendencies. What they said must be done. Pretty nice leader trait.

Anyway, while Stalin's rulership was marked with noticeable amount of atrocities, he definitely should remain in game.

You can also compare him with some other historical leaders. Alexander? Genghis? Qin? Mao? Napoleon? Bismarck? All of them are definitely NOT Gandhi-styled guys.

History of our world is grim and bloody. And if you don't want it to be represented in your game, if you are thinking to remove figureheads of "Stalin" and "Genghis" because they were bad, you can take one step forward and mod out all military units from the game. Only scouts, settlers, workers and stuff like missionaires should remain in this version. No warfare!

Actually it's better to take two steps forward and play "Hello Kitty" or something

 

[donovant22]

Alexander the Great was responsible for millions of people's deaths in Asia.
The Romans persecuted Jews, Christians, and killed many more people in other wars.
The mongol hordes under Genghis Khan killed many people in China.
Mao Tse-Tung is in the game! He was one nasty ruler as well.
Many others including but not limited to Saladin, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Tokugawa, either one of the Ottomans, and Ramesses all caused many deaths or persecuted/oppressed people throughout history.

 

[Black Mech]

To be truthful, I don't think there is one leader in all of history let alone the line up in civ 4 that didn't do something negative, its just how negative a leader is what counts. Its even on a point of veiw basis, Saladin was a wonderful leader towrds the muslims, not to the christains, Napoleon was loved by france, despised by everyone else, every roman emporer was the bane of the rest of europe,Genghis Khan was and still is adored by mongolians(and he did slaughter amny in aisa, but there is a story where he went to personally repopulate aisa afterwards and even preserved some of its culter hence why china still exists, though the personal repopulation is up to opinion if it wasn't just indulgence on his part) even in modern politics you can see how leaders are liked by only a few groups not everyone. Oh and the Ottomans are an oddball in history, a religously zealistic civilization that supported free religion and local polotics, infact their janisary "slave"(janisarys used to comprise of slave soilders before they were standardized, even after standerdization though they were all non-turk) soilders were after some time a great honer to join for any non-turks(even the christians of the Balkens and former byzantium) that were conquered Sorry what was the topic again..... oh yeah why stalin is in civ4.

 

[ICNP]

Hitler's only an exception because he did not make his country a better place.

 

[buffalo6542]

The Romans persecuted Jews, Christians, and killed many more people in other wars.

If I recall correctly. The Romans later became Christian and the Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar didn't persecuted those religious groups, it was later emperors who did. And people will always be killed in wars. There were greater number of deaths for Roman enemies because the Romans were the most technologically advanced during their time.

 

[crazyunits]

good question, why is Hitler not implemented in the game? IMO he is a very charismatic leader who resurrected bankrupt post WWI Germany into a powerhouse (so he should be Charismatic & Financial? Or Charismatic & Aggressive?) so he'll make a great (there's no question on his leadership ability, just his mental health and morality) civ leader so why is he not implemented? Is it because of "political correctness"? If that's the case then Firaxis should take Mao out too, for my parents, who grew up under his tyrannical reign, lost their property, families, and almost their lives.

 

[Zomgmeister]

In my firm opinion, so-called "political correctness" as in actions bent on removing grim historical facts from media, often showing as well-known ban on all Nazi Germany symbolics, including swastika, symbol more ancient than any european civilization - is simply short-minded and stupid.

If you don't speak about it, people can forget how bad it was. Right now in many layers of society "Nazi" equals "cool", because it is forbidden and all that stuff. Real rebellion, man.

Political correctness is not a blessing. It is just yet another instrument of manipulation.

I don't care if Hitler will be included in game or not. It's only a game, Germany already got two animated leaderheads in this game's current state. If they will add another one in Civilization V - fine. If they won't - so be it. The more the merrier imo. I don't have any problems facing Genghis Khan, while he and his people were at least as bad as Adolf Hitler.

It's only a game about history. And in my opinion if someone shaped history in noticeable ways - he is worthy be included. No matter what.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

good question, why is Hitler not implemented in the game? IMO he is a very charismatic leader who resurrected bankrupt post WWI Germany into a powerhouse (so he should be Charismatic & Financial? Or Charismatic & Aggressive?) so he'll make a great (there's no question on his leadership ability, just his mental health and morality) civ leader so why is he not implemented? Is it because of "political correctness"? If that's the case then Firaxis should take Mao out too, for my parents, who grew up under his tyrannical reign, lost their property, families, and almost their lives.

Hitler was not an economic genius. His "economic" resurrection was sheer government-driven spending on military objectives. Doubtful he understood much economy, and if he didn't go to war they'd have probably collapsed. Granted, this worked for him because he wanted war all along, however the financial trait wouldn't work with him. Neither would charismatic, as his conflicts with the decisions of his generals caused much of their mistakes IIRC.

Aggressive suits him fine. Imperialistic would be a better fit than charismatic...kind of? Hard to pick a 2nd trait for him. Maybe industrious for him also, that way he could be JUST LIKE stalin. Haha.

 

[a4phantom]

Hitler was not an economic genius. His "economic" resurrection was sheer government-driven spending on military objectives.

That and stealing.

 

[BakingTheArt]

I'm gonna say Hitler and Stalin should be in, Stalin because his leadership shaped the Soviet Union until its destruction. Hell, his influence is still seen in Russia (coughPutincough). Hitler because he was actually a terrific leader (I mean in the leadership sense, not what he did.). He managed to defend against most of Europe and the USA for about five years, while still gaining territory. If it wasn't for some stupid mistakes in the late part, Germany could've been the supreme power in the world, not the USA.

And that, from a country on the brink of starvation, is pretty amazing.

Can't they just edit it out in the German and Middle Eastern versions?
(Note: I'm not saying Hitler wasn't, well, Satan incarnate. He was a evil, evil man.)

 

[a4phantom]

I'm gonna say Hitler and Stalin should be in, Stalin because his leadership shaped the Soviet Union until its destruction. Hell, his influence is still seen in Russia (coughPutincough). Hitler because he was actually a terrific leader (I mean in the leadership sense, not what he did.). He managed to defend against most of Europe and the USA for about five years, while still gaining territory. If it wasn't for some stupid mistakes in the late part, Germany could've been the supreme power in the world, not the USA.

And that, from a country on the brink of starvation, is pretty amazing.

Can't they just edit it out in the German and Middle Eastern versions?
(Note: I'm not saying Hitler wasn't, well, Satan incarnate. He was a evil, evil man.)

Evil aside, Hitler was also pretty inept. He won some battles, and he was blessed with weak opponents, but the lost the war, and it wasn't even close. Those stupid mistakes weren't small ones, and they didn't all come at the end. He demolished his own country and now they try to pretend he never existed. His influence on most of the world was almost entirely negative, meaning people try not to be like him (with possibly the exception of the Argentine junta).

 

[Comrade Alex]

Hitler was not an economic genius. His "economic" resurrection was sheer government-driven spending on military objectives. Doubtful he understood much economy, and if he didn't go to war they'd have probably collapsed.

The economic reconstruction was far more effective than anywhere else,thanks to the build up of the military. Considering Hitler's entire ideology and policy was centred around the subjugation of the russians in the east, I'd say war was an inevitability.

The economic reconstruction? Wasn't down to Hitler, but Dr. Schacht. Good old Dr. Schacht, sorting out the depression woes.