Does Stalin really belong in the game?

[Grimz101]

Right, sorry, but i have a few beefs with this.


That's a bit mean, and excessive.

Off topic, but I have to say that it doesn't in practice:
The Geneva convention states that the worst war crime is the unprovoked invasion of an soverign nation (and, let's face it, the invasion of Iraq was effectively to satisfy American self-interest. Buuuut let's not argue about that now.)
coupled with abuse of prisoners, occupation of hospitals and 600,000 civilians killed by US forces, imprisonment without trial etc etc, the Geneva convention holds little sway over the Americans.

Lets face it USA can get away with killing civilians every now and then.. but they cannot conduct massacres reguarlly and pass laws that are punishable by death, they cannot subject the nation to its laws ect, i was just trying to establish it was much easier for the Nazi occupation compared to American occupation.. so i declare us both right

You talk about isolationism? Was it not Japn and Germany who declared war on the USA?



Yeah the USSR would have had Germany everywhere.

Japan declared war because it needed to take over Dutch, UK and American dominions on the pacific for oil and other resources.. Japan attacked pearl harbour to cripple the Pacific fleet so it could take these resources in peace.. Americas Oil embargo caused/extenunated this

 

[Comrade Alex]

so i declare us both right

Hooray! For diplomacy!

 

[Navarre]

On top of what Grimz mentioned, the Nazi philosophies had alot of supporters during that time all over Europe, and the success of their military supported the view that theirs was a superior way of conducting affairs. The government that was set up in France for instance avidly supported the deportation of Jews, they were quite happy to get them all out of the country. So there wasn't nearly the kind of resistance that you're seeing today in Iraq.

That's total BS.

Here are a few of the things the French did:

• The French fought in Africa, in Sicily, liberated Corsica, fought in Italy, took part in the invasion of Europe and fought through the battles of France and Germany -- from Normandy to Munich.
• Units from the French navy participated in the invasions of Sicily, Italy, Normandy and South France.
• Units of the French navy and merchant marine took part in convoying operations on the Atlantic and Murmansk routes.
• On June 5, 1944, the day before D-Day, over 5,000 Frenchmen of the resistance dynamited railroads in more than 500 strategic places.
• They delayed strategic German troop movements for an average of 48 hours, according to our military experts. Those 48 hours were tactically priceless ; they saved an untold number of American lives.
• French resistance groups blew up a series of bridges in southern France and delayed one of the Wehrmacht's crack units (Das Reich Panzer Division) for twelve days in getting from Bordeaux to Normandy.
• About 30,000 FF1 troups supported the Third Army's VIII Corps in Brittany: they seized and held key spogs ; they conducted extensive guerrilla operations behind the German lines.
• 25,000 FFI troops protected the south flank of the Third Army in its daring dash across France: the FFI wiped out German bridgeheads north of the Loire River ; they guarded vital lines of communication; they wiped out pockets of German resistance; they held many towns and cities under orders from our commmand.
• When our Third Army was approaching the area between Dijon and Troyes from the west, and while the Seventh Army was approaching this sector from the South, it was the FFI who stubbornly blocked the Germans from making a stand and prevented a mass retirement of German troops.
• In Paris, as our armies drew close, several hundred thousand French men and women rose up against the Germans. 50,000 armed men of the resistance fought and beat the Nazi garrison, and occupied the main buildings and administrative offices of Paris.

These are some of the things the French did.

Millions of French men, women and children put up a fight that took immense guts, skill and patience.

The Fighting French never stopped fighting - in the RAF North Africa, Italy, and up through France with the US 7th Army.

Here is how the French people inside France fought the Germans after the fall of France:

• They sabotaged production in war plants. They destroyed parts, damaged machinery, slowed down production, changed blue-prints
• They dynamited power plants, warehouses. transmission lines. They wrecked trains. They destroyed bridges. They damaged locomotives.
• They organized armed groups which fought the German police, the Gestapo, the Vichy militia. They executed French collaborationists.
• They acted as a great spy army for SHAEF in London. They transmitted as many as 300 reports a day to SHAEF on German troops' movements, military installations, and the nature and movement of military supplies.
• They got samples of new German weapons and explosive powder to London.
• They ran an elaborate "underground railway" for getting shot-down American and British flyers back to England. They hid, clothed, fed and smuggled out of France over 4,000 American airmen and parachutists (Getting food and clothes isn't easy when you're on a starvation ration yourself. It's risky to forge identification papers). Every American airman rescued meant half a dozen French lives were risked. On an average, one Frenchman was shot every two hours, from 1940 to 1944 by the Germans in an effort to stop French sabotage and assistance to the Allies.

The Germans destroyed 344 communities (62 completely) for "crimes" not connected with military operations.

Perhaps the Germans realized better than we do the relentless fight against them which the French people waged.

An official German report, quoted in the Christian Science Monitor on December 26, 1942, stated sadly: "For systematic inefficiency and criminal carelessness they (the French) are unsurpassed in the history of modern industrial labor".

And that's from an US source in 1945, not a French one : 112 gripes against the French.

You might want to read the Wikipedia article on resistance during WW II.

 

[caketastydelish]

Right, sorry, but i have a few beefs with this.


That's a bit mean, and excessive.

Off topic, but I have to say that it doesn't in practice:
The Geneva convention states that the worst war crime is the unprovoked invasion of an soverign nation (and, let's face it, the invasion of Iraq was effectively to satisfy American self-interest. Buuuut let's not argue about that now.)
coupled with abuse of prisoners, occupation of hospitals and 600,000 civilians killed by US forces, imprisonment without trial etc etc, the Geneva convention holds little sway over the Americans.

But back to the main argument:

Simple: Hitler was far more brutal than old Joe. Is the attempted systematic destruction of entire demographics such as Jews, Romani, Slavs, the disabled not enough?

Coupled with the forceful annexation of Austria (Anschluss was rigged), Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Blegium, Netherlands, France, etc etc etc the list goes on and on, I belive it is safe to say that the actions of Hitler were immeasurably worse.

You talk about isolationism? Was it not Japn and Germany who declared war on the USA?



Yeah the USSR would have had Germany everywhere.

Its more complicated than that. Japan attacked us because they thought war with the US was immenent. They thought that because.

1. Our lend-lease with Britan (an allied country)

2. We were allied in the last war, so we'd probably go allied in this one as well.

3. We had a trade embargo on Japan.

There could be other reasons as well, but those are the three main ones.

As for Germany in World war 1? We were allied with Britan, so once again, they thought US entering the war was immenent. However, they figured they might as well get the first strike. If avoided alliances and such, they wouldn't have attacked us. We kept helping England's economy in both world wars (even before US was in the war) and Germany didn't like that. They didn't like us giving supplies and such to them, so they attacked us.

If we didn't get involved in European affairs, 250,000 (and thats just the WW2 American Causality rate) soldiers wouldn't have had to die. And thats not the only drawbacks.

Stalin was also racist like hitler. Stalin persecuted Jews, blacks, gysies, homosexuals, and possibly more! I said that already in the very first post of the first page.

 

[IronicBuddha]

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

I don't think that PC-ness should determine which leaders get in. The ones that affected the world, evil or not, are the ones that should be included. But hey, a hitler thread is a hitler thread, not worth arguing here.

 

[Grimz101]

That's total BS.

And that's from an US source in 1945, not a French one : 112 gripes against the French.

You might want to read the Wikipedia article on resistance during WW II.

Im gonna leave someone else to deal with you since i refuse to dig myself into a bigger hole !

Its more complicated than that. Japan attacked us because they thought war with the US was immenent. They thought that because.

1. Our lend-lease with Britan (an allied country)

2. We were allied in the last war, so we'd probably go allied in this one as well.

3. We had a trade embargo on Japan.

There could be other reasons as well, but those are the three main ones.

As for Germany in World war 1? We were allied with Britan, so once again, they thought US entering the war was immenent. However, they figured they might as well get the first strike. If avoided alliances and such, they wouldn't have attacked us. We kept helping England's economy in both world wars (even before US was in the war) and Germany didn't like that. They didn't like us giving supplies and such to them, so they attacked us.

If we didn't get involved in European affairs, 250,000 (and thats just the WW2 American Causality rate) soldiers wouldn't have had to die. And thats not the only drawbacks.

Stalin was also racist like hitler. Stalin persecuted Jews, blacks, gysies, homosexuals, and possibly more! I said that already in the very first post of the first page.

Im sure America was still trading with the Axis Powers before the declaration of war !

2. Point two is silly.. Look at Italy.. WWI was was with UK and Co.. WWII with Axis and co..
2.5. Read up about Nazi Germany trying to encourage Mexico to invade USA then discuss that and you get a gold star, since that would be a more valid reason

3. Only point i agree with, and so you are proving USA perpetuated the war ?

So are you saying America did not have a responsibility to join the War.. it was in its own intrests.. already pointed to and outlied what would have happened if USA never got involved.. and well it seems there would of been more death in the long run if USA wasnt involved

Whilist Stalin ruled, the USSR was Industrialized from a backwards agricultural state, 100 years behind the west, to a Superpower that was able to thrawt the Axis Invasion, A nation who put in orbit the first artificial satellite.. What if Stalin never came to power, merely stayed a Secutary in the Party? Well comrade we(I live in London ) may be including Hitler in CIV IV because he Won...
Although there were many negative externalities of his reign.. one shouldnt dismiss his accomplishments..



**Edit**
However someone else has already brought up a summary that closes why the Stalin Vrs Hitler arguement is null...
Hitler is the personification of Evil in many peoples mind, the Anti-Christ to some..

 

[Willem]

Yes, but Britain could not have conducted D-day alone, I'm a little fuzzy on the Tank Wars in africa and the Invasion of Italy, but I think we were needed there too.

Well that's kind of my point. Britain couldn't have pushed Germany from the West alone so the Soviets would have ended up sweeping right through Europe.

 

[Willem]

Coupled with the forceful annexation of Austria (Anschluss was rigged), Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Blegium, Netherlands, France, etc etc etc the list goes on and on, I belive it is safe to say that the actions of Hitler were immeasurably worse.

You shouldn't really put Austria on that list. They're a German speaking country and didn't put up much of a fight when Hitler marched in. Many Austrians were quite happy to join up with their fellow Germans and the country probably would have joined even without the tanks.

 

[Willem]

As far as claiming that we did the wrong thing in Iraq, I guess leaving a tyrant who systematically killed people in power is ok.

And how many more tyrants just like Saddam are there out there in the world yet the US does absolutely nothing about about them? Does it have even one thing to say against the Myanmar regime or Mugabe in Africa? And what about Sudan, is it doing anything to stop the bloodshed there? Claiming altruism because you've removed one of the petty tyrants in this world while not even lifting a finger against the rest is hypocritical in the extreme. And altruism had nothing to do with Bush going in to Iraq. It was about oil and American self interest, nothing more. Unless economic interests are at stake, the US does nothing more than spout empty phrases about human rights and equality. It's about time you people started putting your money where your mouth is, or get out of everybody's business altogether.

 

[T.A JONES]

You shouldn't really put Austria on that list. They're a German speaking country .

They do not speak the same German Germans speak - they speak a sometimes rather heavy dialect, or accent. Much harder to understand if your a native German or taugh German overseas in North American school
Shesh son get it right Ignore test

 

[Willem]

That's total BS.

And that's from an US source in 1945, not a French one : 112 gripes against the French.

You might want to read the Wikipedia article on resistance during WW II.

The Vichy government during the war was well known for supporting the German position. Many of the free French considered them traitors for so willingly going along with German policies and were treated as such when the war was over. That's not to say that all the French were sympathetic to Nazism but many were, just like many Dutch were as well. My father was in the Dutch resistance during the war and I've heard many stories about how some people openly supported German control.

 

[Willem]

They do not speak the same German Germans speak - they speak a sometimes rather heavy dialect, or accent. Much harder to understand if your a native German or taugh German overseas in North American school
Shesh son get it right Ignore test

So what! Some North Americans find the Irish or Scots to be hard to understand yet they still speak English. The fact remains that many Austrians were more than willing to join up with the Nazis.

 

[Navarre]

The Vichy government during the war was well known for supporting the German position. Many of the free French considered them traitors for so willingly going along with German policies and were treated as such when the war was over. That's not to say that all the French were sympathetic to Nazism but many were, just like many Dutch were as well. My father was in the Dutch resistance during the war and I've heard many stories about how some people openly supported German control.

Some, yes. The government under the occupation, considered a traitor and illegitimate governement, yes. But from there going all the way to say there was little to no resistance in Europe under Nazi occupation and the anti-jew sentiment was mostly shared by the population is false.

 

[caketastydelish]

Im gonna leave someone else to deal with you since i refuse to dig myself into a bigger hole !



Im sure America was still trading with the Axis Powers before the declaration of war !

2. Point two is silly.. Look at Italy.. WWI was was with UK and Co.. WWII with Axis and co..
2.5. Read up about Nazi Germany trying to encourage Mexico to invade USA then discuss that and you get a gold star, since that would be a more valid reason

3. Only point i agree with, and so you are proving USA perpetuated the war ?

So are you saying America did not have a responsibility to join the War.. it was in its own intrests.. already pointed to and outlied what would have happened if USA never got involved.. and well it seems there would of been more death in the long run if USA wasnt involved

Whilist Stalin ruled, the USSR was Industrialized from a backwards agricultural state, 100 years behind the west, to a Superpower that was able to thrawt the Axis Invasion, A nation who put in orbit the first artificial satellite.. What if Stalin never came to power, merely stayed a Secutary in the Party? Well comrade we(I live in London ) may be including Hitler in CIV IV because he Won...
Although there were many negative externalities of his reign.. one shouldnt dismiss his accomplishments..



**Edit**
However someone else has already brought up a summary that closes why the Stalin Vrs Hitler arguement is null...
Hitler is the personification of Evil in many peoples mind, the Anti-Christ to some..

Actually, we where lend leasing with Britan, and NOT with Germany. Nazi Germany wanted Mexico to attack US (and it was just Texas by the way) because just like Japan, they thought United States going allied was immenent.

 

[Comrade Alex]

2. We were allied in the last war, so we'd probably go allied in this one as well.

That smells of wrong. Japan was also allied with the triple Entente during the first world war though.

I agree with the third point though, the embargo. Japan's pacific expansion was based upon a need to aquire more raw materials.

The fact remains that many Austrians were more than willing to join up with the Nazis

Also true, Hitler himself was Austrian. Had it not been for the Hapsburgs Austria and Germany would have united long ago. The point remains, however, that the Anschluss referendum was rigged, so technically I do believe that Austria has a place on that list.

Imagine the UK annexing Eire.


But really, Hitler shouldn't be included in the game. Aside from it being inconsiderate, he was not a seminal leader, which (let's face it) Stalin was.

The four major allied leaders are included, because they won the war (Churchill, FDR, Stalin and De Gaulle). Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini lost, so can't really be classed as great or influential world leaders.

Leaving Hitler out of the WWII mod though? Psh.
Von Papen is too wet to be taken seriously.

 

[Willem]

But from there going all the way to say there was little to no resistance in Europe under Nazi occupation and the anti-jew sentiment was mostly shared by the population is false.

I didn't say that. I said there was far less than what the US is now facing in Iraq. Please read the posts before you make your comments. Believe me I know there was resistance, my father was part of it.

 

[Willem]

Nazi Germany wanted Mexico to attack US (and it was just Texas by the way)...

And the distinction is?

 

[Comrade Alex]

Originally Posted by Oldschooler88
Nazi Germany wanted Mexico to attack US (and it was just Texas by the way)...

That was the First World War was it not?

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Hitler killed 20 million ppl of which 6 million were jews. (stop hogging the halocaust spotlight jews!) The only diffrence between Hitler, Stalin, and Mao and other genocidal tyrants of the past was technology. If the catholic church had gas chambers and cattle cars in the dark ages we would all be living in an orwellian nightmare world with the pope as big brother.

Hitler civic list: police state(of course), nationhood (deutchland uber alles), slavery(death camps), SP (german (NA)tional (ZI)ocialist worker's party), theocracy (norse mythology+crazyism)

 

[Comrade Alex]

The only diffrence between hitler, stalin, and mao and other genocidal tyrants was technology. if the catholic church had gas chambers and cattle cars in the dark ages we would all be living in an orwellian nightmare world with the pope as big brother.

That'd be immense.

In a truly disturbing way.

Not that I'm a Catholic or anything.