Does Stalin really belong in the game?

[Gooblah]

Spoiler :

I only get right back in the debate because you guys do as well. But whatever. Anyways, even if Lincoln orginally fought to reunite the union, not to end slavery, he's still better than Stalin none the less. Which is better? Someone that reunited there country, and in the middle of the war they decided to end slavery? Or someone that ordered the deaths of 18 million people?

No, Washington wasn't perfect. But which is worse, someone that owned a few slaves and then set them free after he died, or someone that killed 18 million people?

Germany sunk our trading ships in world war 1, because America was lend-leasing with Britan. Britan was our friends, but we didn't want to go to war anyways. We really wanted to remain neutral. Germany felt that going to war with America was immenent, so they figured they might as well strike first.

As for world war 2? Japan, thought going to war with America was immenent. Japan was an axis-power country in the war. America was allied. America was allied in the last war, so why not this one as well? Besides, we where already doing the lend-lease thing once again with the Brits. It was well known that America supported the allies, even before they entered the war. Because of our friendship with the allies, Japan got worried and attacked us.

France declared war on Prussia, and Bismark honored his military alliance with Prussia, and attacked France. With the combined Prussia, and German armies, they successfully attacked France. The Austrian invasion however, was wrong, you got me there. I still say Stalin was more evil then Bismark though.

Hmm. I'm not denying that Stalin was an evil bastard. But attempting to censor him simply makes a case for censoring everyone else. And lets not get into an argument about what's 'morally worse'. You and I both know these things are intangible.

Japan was an ally of the US during the first World War. However, during the period between wars, it rapidly industrialized an built a formidable navy. It used this navy (and super-strong army) to annex Manchuria, Korea, and most of the Pacific. War with the United States, as you said, was inevitable. However, Japan didn't hasten the assault on Pearl Harbor just because they were trading with Britain and France. Britain, the Dutch-in-exile, China, and America (ABCD, as called in the Japanese media) had put an embargo on it, and stopped trading oil, iron, steel, coal, etc to Japan. This forced Japan to attack to get the goods. On the same day it hit Pearl Harbor, Japan also took Thailand and hit the Phillipines. Japan was planning on attacking the United States irregardless of British involvement, all it wanted was military goods to support a Chinese campaign.

I agree that Stalin sucked. However, his contribution to world history would be much maligned if he did not appear. Hirohito (I think...) is banned in Japan, while sales would flop and die in Germany and Israel if Hitler made a show. Cynical but true.

An easy way to get rid of Stalin would be to mod him out. Simply delete any code lines that deal with him, and voila, no more Glorious Leader/Uncle Joe!

 

[caketastydelish]

Hmm. I'm not denying that Stalin was an evil bastard. But attempting to censor him simply makes a case for censoring everyone else. And lets not get into an argument about what's 'morally worse'. You and I both know these things are intangible.

Japan was an ally of the US during the first World War. However, during the period between wars, it rapidly industrialized an built a formidable navy. It used this navy (and super-strong army) to annex Manchuria, Korea, and most of the Pacific. War with the United States, as you said, was inevitable. However, Japan didn't hasten the assault on Pearl Harbor just because they were trading with Britain and France. Britain, the Dutch-in-exile, China, and America (ABCD, as called in the Japanese media) had put an embargo on it, and stopped trading oil, iron, steel, coal, etc to Japan. This forced Japan to attack to get the goods. On the same day it hit Pearl Harbor, Japan also took Thailand and hit the Phillipines. Japan was planning on attacking the United States irregardless of British involvement, all it wanted was military goods to support a Chinese campaign.

I agree that Stalin sucked. However, his contribution to world history would be much maligned if he did not appear. Hirohito (I think...) is banned in Japan, while sales would flop and die in Germany and Israel if Hitler made a show. Cynical but true.

An easy way to get rid of Stalin would be to mod him out. Simply delete any code lines that deal with him, and voila, no more Glorious Leader/Uncle Joe!

My point exactly. By lend-leasing Britan and boycotting Japan, it was obvious we favored the allies. This is what made Japan eager to attack us. If we stayed neutral in world affairs Pearl Harbor would not have happened, and the war would have played itself out without us.

As well as many other things. There are LOADS of examples, but here are just a few:

We supported fidel castro
We helped Iran get its modern theocracy
We helped the taliban agaisnt Russia, and now the Taliban rule Afganistan.

 

[Grimz101]

We supported fidel castro

Bay of Pigs?
Cuban Missile Crisis?
Numerous assassination attempts by US goverment?
Operation Northwoods?
Paying the Mafia money to kill him?
If thats how Americans support people i say good luck to iraq

 

[Grimz101]

My point exactly. By lend-leasing Britan and boycotting Japan, it was obvious we favored the allies. This is what made Japan eager to attack us. If we stayed neutral in world affairs Pearl Harbor would not have happened, and the war would have played itself out without us.

Yes but the point is it was in American intrests to get involved in the war.. please tell me the benefit of having a socialist or a facist Europe to America..

If America adopted a true Neutral policy, it would have continued with barriers of entry for foreign goods which it enacted after the wall street crash, and so no one would buy American Exports, so Japan would still have a hunger for resources..
Trade promotes peace!
Japan did not attack America because it favored the allies.. it attacked America for OIL

 

[Ermelinho]

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

They speak a more proper german than most bavarians do and they are germans. there are so many heavy dialects inside germany. did you ever talk to someone from suabia or franconia?
it´s much easier to understand a guy from vienna.
besides that, austria actually is part of germany historically (or german cultural area). and what hitler - actually born and raised in austria - did was to take austria and other regions populated by germans "heim ins reich" (literally: home into the country, meaning back to reich). so it´s true that many germans outside germany acclaimed his scheme.

on topic: i think stalin, just like hitler should not be in the main game. lenin would be a better choice imo.

 

[Shekwan]

Guy I just want to say this thread is awesome. The american goverment had the opprtunity to take control of the global economic market before world war 2
and fair play to it - it took it. Ever sice then it's had a monoploy on world economic markets until the 1973 oil crisis and even after so it has already took out the only oil power to switch to th euro as an oil power (Iraq).

Americans there is no reason to feel like you have to feel the need to defend the US' choices in the last 50 years - you did what it took to stay on top. But as I type both Russia and Iran are deciding wether or not to swith to the euro as a reserve currency - and as such lies the main reason the US is ready to go to war with Iran - Dollar Imperialism.

 

[caketastydelish]

Yes but the point is it was in American intrests to get involved in the war.. please tell me the benefit of having a socialist or a facist Europe to America..

If America adopted a true Neutral policy, it would have continued with barriers of entry for foreign goods which it enacted after the wall street crash, and so no one would buy American Exports, so Japan would still have a hunger for resources..
Trade promotes peace!
Japan did not attack America because it favored the allies.. it attacked America for OIL

Being neutral does not mean not trading with anyone. It simply means avoiding alliances, and not particularly helping/hurting any countries.
As a bottom line, it means staying out of world affairs as much as possible.
The United States is the other way around. We stay IN world affairs as much as possible. We didn't take George Washington's advice as to not go snooping in matters that aren't ours, and now look what is happening!

And someone attacked Washington, saying he is a bad leader, just as bad as Stalin. And since Washington said he wanted the US to be more isolated and such, it is on topic. To the point, that by proving Washington was RIGHT you can't say he was a bad leader.

Now on to Japan. The true answer is a combination of both. The fact that we were trading with the British definintly did not make Japan happening. We were letting them have some of our battleships and such in the lend-lease, to help them defeat Germany. Germany was Japan's ally in world war 2. How do you think Japan felt about that?

You are saying the Axis powers would have won if it were not for America. I believe this is not so. As it has already been pointed out earlier, Hitler could not have held all of Europe for long. Even in history, Soviet Russia held eastern Europe until '87. And thats eastern Europe. How long do you think France and such would last under communism? A country as developed as the French (and other western Europeans) under communism? I doubt it!

At the very least, if we don't take sides no one can hate us.

 

[caketastydelish]

Guy I just want to say this thread is awesome. The american goverment had the opprtunity to take control of the global economic market before world war 2
and fair play to it - it took it. Ever sice then it's had a monoploy on world economic markets until the 1973 oil crisis and even after so it has already took out the only oil power to switch to th euro as an oil power (Iraq).

Americans there is no reason to feel like you have to feel the need to defend the US' choices in the last 50 years - you did what it took to stay on top. But as I type both Russia and Iran are deciding wether or not to swith to the euro as a reserve currency - and as such lies the main reason the US is ready to go to war with Iran - Dollar Imperialism.

Thank you.

I am very patriotic for my country and love it very much. Don't get me wrong. However, its policies in foreign affairs are simply uncalled for. What buisness did we really have in Iraq, for example? There were no weapons of mass destruction! We fought for selfish reasons. The UN refused to help us because there were no weapons of mass destruction. The UN is several combinations of countries combined. Which one knows more, the United states by itself or the UN?

Yet the US apparently acted like they knew more. And sure enough, there weren't any. This wasn't the first time the US does whatever the heck it wants and dosen't listen to others.

Things like this are why everybody hates us. I am proud to be in American, and I know I live in a great country. Its a shame that our modern government is not running it the way our founding fathers meant. They never wanted us to go peeping in other people's buisness like this!

 

[Willem]

We supported fidel castro
We helped Iran get its modern theocracy
We helped the taliban agaisnt Russia, and now the Taliban rule Afganistan.

Man, you really need to brush up on your world history because you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The US has always hated Castro, and did everything they could to stop him short of landing troops on Cuban soil before the revolution to prop up the Batista government. The last thing they wanted was a communist regime on their doorstep, especially one being backed by the Soviet Union. The world was on the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis but fortunately the Soviets backed down and removed all their missiles from Cuban soil. At no time has the US ever supported Castro, it was always the Soviets. And the US has been trying hard ever since to topple him, even sending in a hit squad to try and assassinate him. Which failed miserably.

The US did not help the Ayatollah in any way, in fact they hated him as much as they hated Saddam. The US was backing the Shah of Iran who was giving the US oil companies a sweetheart deal to extract the oil from his country. He was a brutal and repressive dictator much like Saddam was but the US bent over backwards trying to keep him in power. But he pissed off so many of his own people that it was impossible to do so short of sending over US troops to help him quash the rebellion, which the American public would never agree to. But the US gave him all the weapons and support he requested trying to keep him in power.

It was not the Taliban that was fighting Russia it was the Mujihadeen, or Freedom Fighters. They were not battling on the grounds of religion at the time, which is the hallmark of the Taliban, but simply to get the Russians out of Afghanistan since the communist government in power at the time had lost all credibility with the people. When it looked like it was going to be overthrown, the Russians stepped in to try and restore it back to power. The Taliban didn't form until much later. And they don't rule Afghanistan at the moment, they were driven out by the Americans and the Afghan resistance after 9/11. They are waging a guerilla war there now in order to try and get back into power, but the current government is one that has been democratically elected. Hell, you don't even know your current affairs and you're trying to come here and pretend you actually have a valid viewpoint? You're really making yourself look like a fool I'm afraid to say.

PS: BTW, It's because of US isolationism during WW2 that Hitler invaded Poland and started his campaign to begin with. He knew that the US would not get involved in Europe because they had adopted a policy of not getting involved in world affairs at the time. All they wanted to do was stay at home and make money. If the US would have made it clear from the beginning that they would not tolerate Nazi aggression in Europe, Hitler would have no doubt thought twice about waging war. The last thing that he wanted was to get the US against him with all of it's resources and industrial capacity. The US did everything it could to stay out the conflict but Japan left them with no choice. And it was not Germany who declared war on the US. Because Japan was a member of the Axis alliance, when they attacked Pearl harbour the US unilateraly declared war on all members of that coalition at the same time. Hitler did not want the US to be involved in Europe because he knew they would prove to be a formidable enemy. Once again you're presenting as facts things that simply aren't true or accurate.

 

[Willem]

and what hitler - actually born and raised in austria - did was to take austria and other regions populated by germans "heim ins reich" (literally: home into the country, meaning back to reich). so it´s true that many germans outside germany acclaimed his scheme.

In fact many Austrians joined the German military and some even ended up becoming SS oficers.

on topic: i think stalin, just like hitler should not be in the main game. lenin would be a better choice imo.

I would have to agree with you actually. It was really Lenin who started the communist movement and got Russia started down the path that it went down. Unfortunately he didn't get much of a chance to lead the country according to his own vision, which was much more moderate than Stalin's. Stalin gets most of the credit for Russia's accomplishments, but he would never have gained power if it hadn't been for Lenin in the first place.

 

[Iranon]

Lenin tried to ensure that Stalin did NOT succeed him though. And Russia's transformation into a modern superpower (with its staggering cost in human life) took place under Stalin...

 

[Bonescorpion]

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.

Of course there is invested US interest in the Middle East, but the US has not received a single drop of oil from Iraq, so everybody that claims we went in for oil is off based. My arguement is based on the fact that we accomplished something good by removing a tyrant even though we went in for WMD, there was still value in the invasion. If the Sudan was suspected of having WMD then it would be a different story and if they didnt and the nation was stabilized by an invasion it would still be worth it.

 

[Willem]

Of course there is invested US interest in the Middle East, but the US has not received a single drop of oil from Iraq, so everybody that claims we went in for oil is off based.

I've come to hold a different view on this myself. It was never the intention to get oil out of Iraq. The goal was to destabilize the country so that the oil would not flow and so put pressure on world reserves in order to drive up the price. If Iraq was still pumping like it used to, the current price of oil wouldn't be nearly as high since there'd be much more supply on the market. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but I think there's been alot of backroom deals made over this conflict that the public is not aware of.

My arguement is based on the fact that we accomplished something good by removing a tyrant even though we went in for WMD, there was still value in the invasion.

Have you though? Saddam may have been a tyrant but at least he kept that country together and maintained order. Look at the mess it's in now. It's still debatable whether Iraq will survive as a country or whether it will be torn apart by civil war. Was it really a good thing to throw that country into chaos with all the loss of life that has occured, and is yet to occur?

If the Sudan was suspected of having WMD then it would be a different story and if they didnt and the nation was stabilized by an invasion it would still be worth it.

If you're trying to imply here that Iraq has been stabilized I'd suggest you look again. It's not even close to being so. The country is just as fractured as when the US first took control.

 

[Willem]

Lenin tried to ensure that Stalin did NOT succeed him though.

Yes but it was largely Lenin who was responsible for the communist movement to begin with, which provided the mechanisms for Stalin's rise to power. There's no way he could have risen to the top under the Czars. It was only the communist system that provided him with the opportunity.

 

[fed1943]

I am not American, and I do not hate America, conversely I like it.

You are, by sure, the least evil leaders the World have known, and this is a point.

To keep the leading Power out of world's affairs, would be a mistake and not
good for anyone (remember the failed Society of Nations).

Of course, you did big mistakes and some crimes; to overthrow the democratic
regimes in Iran and Chile and replace them by dictatorships are the two biggest.

You helped Castro to win, and rightly you did, as Baptista Government was the
most disgusting one (a rule by gangsters allied with some gangsters in your land,
who caused death and other problems in the States); besides,at that time
Castro was not known as communist and perhaps he was not. Some of your
politicians were very good communist makers).

About to defend "American interests": what do you call American interests?
The interests of your Nation or the personal interests of some politicians and
their friends, some of them Americans, others not?

Be careful pals, these "American interests" can be willing to go as far as they
need and American people is out of their concerns.

Best regards,

 

[Comrade Alex]

I am not American, and I do not hate America, conversely I like it.

You are, by sure, the least evil leaders the World have known, and this is a point.

To keep the leading Power out of world's affairs, would be a mistake and not
good for anyone (remember the failed Society of Nations).

Of course, you did big mistakes and some crimes; to overthrow the democratic
regimes in Iran and Chile and replace them by dictatorships are the two biggest.

You helped Castro to win, and rightly you did, as Baptista Government was the
most disgusting one (a rule by gangsters allied with some gangsters in your land,
who caused death and other problems in the States); besides,at that time
Castro was not known as communist and perhaps he was not. Some of your
politicians were very good communist makers).

About to defend "American interests": what do you call American interests?
The interests of your Nation or the personal interests of some politicians and
their friends, some of them Americans, others not?

Be careful pals, these "American interests" can be willing to go as far as they
need and American people is out of their concerns.

Best regards,

"America doesn't have friends, America only has interests" --- Henry Kissinger.


There's quite a lot wrong with the post you left there. First, the claim that the USA helped Castro into power.

Hate to say it old chum, but it was the US who supported the Batista regime.

I think it's fair to say that America bases most of it's military campaigns and aid around the maitainence of it's economic monopolisation, not altruism. After all, even the British Empire used to pretend that it was embarking upon it's imperialistic campaigns to "spread morally just and healthy British influence".

I also have qualms with the statement that "You are, by sure, the least evil leaders the World have known, and this is a point."

I'd say the rampant economic imperialism, often manifesting itself as military intervention; which is veiled by meaningless protestations of altruism, does constitute what you'd call "evil". I'd say that this gratituous use of the word "evil" is a little inaccurate. Too biblical.

It was Lenin, I believed, who identified that an economic superpower such as the US would be inclined to use military action in order to maintain it's market dominance.

But that's just my opinion. I might be wrong.

 

[Grimz101]

Guy I just want to say this thread is awesome. The american goverment had the opprtunity to take control of the global economic market before world war 2
and fair play to it - it took it. Ever sice then it's had a monoploy on world economic markets until the 1973 oil crisis and even after so it has already took out the only oil power to switch to th euro as an oil power (Iraq).

Americans there is no reason to feel like you have to feel the need to defend the US' choices in the last 50 years - you did what it took to stay on top. But as I type both Russia and Iran are deciding wether or not to swith to the euro as a reserve currency - and as such lies the main reason the US is ready to go to war with Iran - Dollar Imperialism.

You might like to read this
Lets start with the conspiracy theories

 

[Grimz101]

Being neutral does not mean not trading with anyone. It simply means avoiding alliances, and not particularly helping/hurting any countries.
As a bottom line, it means staying out of world affairs as much as possible.
The United States is the other way around. We stay IN world affairs as much as possible. We didn't take George Washington's advice as to not go snooping in matters that aren't ours, and now look what is happening!

And someone attacked Washington, saying he is a bad leader, just as bad as Stalin. And since Washington said he wanted the US to be more isolated and such, it is on topic. To the point, that by proving Washington was RIGHT you can't say he was a bad leader.

Now on to Japan. The true answer is a combination of both. The fact that we were trading with the British definintly did not make Japan happening. We were letting them have some of our battleships and such in the lend-lease, to help them defeat Germany. Germany was Japan's ally in world war 2. How do you think Japan felt about that?

You are saying the Axis powers would have won if it were not for America. I believe this is not so. As it has already been pointed out earlier, Hitler could not have held all of Europe for long. Even in history, Soviet Russia held eastern Europe until '87. And thats eastern Europe. How long do you think France and such would last under communism? A country as developed as the French (and other western Europeans) under communism? I doubt it!

At the very least, if we don't take sides no one can hate us.

If its not helping/hurting any countries than no exporting oil/weapons ?
Time to go spiderman! With greater power comes great responsibility.. you can look at USA and say its spiderman, France was Uncle Ben, Nazi Germany was the robber guy!

Communism failed due to goverment failure, starvation ect.. Nazi Germany had an efficent system added to that cause trouble then forced labour.. i would certainly be behaved if there was a hypothetical gun pointed to my head! And it wouldnt just be Europe it would be North Africia, Asia ect

If USSR won now, well France had communist parties after WWII anyway and they were successful so there is no doubt some people believed the idealodgy..

 

[opus95]

Every Civ player who uses the Civic "Slavery" to build anything by "whipping" is using Stalinist, or Maoist, or Genghis Khan, etc. methods. They willingly destroyed lives by working people to death in order to get something accomplished faster (or at least they thought it would be faster). So, players, if you condemn the cruel, evil leaders of the past...don't use whipping, or city razing, etc. when you play the game.

 

[Willem]

You helped Castro to win, and rightly you did, as Baptista Government was the
most disgusting one (a rule by gangsters allied with some gangsters in your land,
who caused death and other problems in the States); besides,at that time
Castro was not known as communist and perhaps he was not. Some of your
politicians were very good communist makers).,

Geez, how many times do I have to repeat myself? The US has never supported Fidel Castro, it was the Soviets that helped him gain power. He was a known communist from the day he began his revolution and the US hated him for it. They openly supported the Batista government in order to try and prevent having a communist nation at their doorstep. Read up on your history people before you make posts that are glaringly wrong and make you look foolish. Oh, and there was no dmeocratically government in Iran to overthrow, and they certainly didn't help the Ayatollah gain power. Iran was ruled by a despot who was called the Shah of Iran and he certainly didn't gain power by democratic means.