Does Stalin really belong in the game?

[Comrade Alex]

I thought it was just Austria against Napoleon?

Actually, forget both Poland and Austria-Hungary, more to the point, where are Scotland and Serbia?
Serbia could have Slobodan Milosovich as their leader, and provoke another 23 page thread in protest!

 

[ICNP]

No Napolean fought against Austria, Prussia, Britian, and (the reason he loses) Russia.

Remember kids! There is no way to win a land war in Russia!

 

[Wolfshanze]

Remember kids! There is no way to win a land war in Russia!

Tell that to the Mongols... they did just fine putting-down Russia.

 

[ICNP]

Maybe their should be a date where that begins then? Because in Soviet Russia...No I wouldn't make a joke like that

 

[a4phantom]

Also, the choosing of Time's "Man of the Year", much like the choosing of Civ leaders should be, is based on influence and has nothing to do with Time, or the West as a whole, condoning or condeming the featured person's actions or view point.

That's not entirely true. Osama bin Laden owned 2001, and they didn't dare make him "Man of the Year."

 

[a4phantom]

I thought it was just Austria against Napoleon?

Actually, forget both Poland and Austria-Hungary, more to the point, where are Scotland and Serbia?
Serbia could have Slobodan Milosovich as their leader, and provoke another 23 page thread in protest!

Slobo was a petty little tyrant and murderer. There was nothing petty or little about Stalin.

 

[MotezumaMan]

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.

@oldshooler88 churhill said a really offensife thing about ghandi i can't reall get the exat wording but something like it is frightenig to seee a naked man strolling up the walk and still disobeying our power implying that killing is the only way to independence

 

[caketastydelish]

@oldshooler88 churhill said a really offensife thing about ghandi i can't reall get the exat wording but something like it is frightenig to seee a naked man strolling up the walk and still disobeying our power implying that killing is the only way to independence

Well what did you expect? Churchill was British, and Gandhi made India Independent from British rule. I'm not saying I agree or support what Churchill said, but what were you expecting? Further more, that quote is not terribly famous and as far as I'm consirned may not even be true.

It sucks to be in the public eye because every little thing you say gets documented and if you take the of the worst that came out of everyones mouth, 99 percent of people would seem as bad as the Nazis.

So what he might have said something bad here and there. But the majority of the time he was good, and thats what counts.

 

[a4phantom]

So what he might have said something bad here and there. But the majority of the time he was good, and thats what counts.

If you see Hitler and his allies as the primary evil (and I do), than Churchill was a great man. If you were an Indian who wanted to escape the slavery and humiliation of the British Empire, you'd see him quite differently.

 

[zebomba2]

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.

 

[caketastydelish]

If you see Hitler and his allies as the primary evil (and I do), than Churchill was a great man. If you were an Indian who wanted to escape the slavery and humiliation of the British Empire, you'd see him quite differently.

The Indians weren't exactly slaves. The British just had a monopoly of the natural recources. As a matter of fact, they even built schools and stuff for the Indians.

Now I'm not saying what they did was overall good, but the people in the concentration camps would be VERY happy to trade places with the Indians under British rule.

 

[a4phantom]

The Indians weren't exactly slaves. The British just had a monopoly of the natural recources. As a matter of fact, they even built schools and stuff for the Indians.

Their country was a slave of the British Empire. Individual Indians weren't legally property, in the sense that African American slaves were in the Old South, but they certainly weren't free. The American Revolutionaries described themselves as slaves under similar circumstances, while suffering a lot less humiliation.

Now I'm not saying what they did was overall good, but the people in the concentration camps would be VERY happy to trade places with the Indians under British rule.

Very few people in the 20th century would have wanted to trade places with the victims of the Nazi concentration camps. Like I said, I agree that Hitler was the ultimate evil of his time, and that the sins of his enemies (British imperialism, American racism, Soviet Stalinism) are overshadowed. But that doesn't change the fact that Churchill was a hardcore imperialist, and that the people who remember him in a less heroic light than we do have their reasons.

 

[a4phantom]

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.

10characters

 

[smile286]

That's simple: Hitler loose. Stalin win.

 

[caketastydelish]

Their country was a slave of the British Empire. Individual Indians weren't legally property, in the sense that African American slaves were in the Old South, but they certainly weren't free. The American Revolutionaries described themselves as slaves under similar circumstances, while suffering a lot less humiliation.





Very few people in the 20th century would have wanted to trade places with the victims of the Nazi concentration camps. Like I said, I agree that Hitler was the ultimate evil of his time, and that the sins of his enemies (British imperialism, American racism, Soviet Stalinism) are overshadowed. But that doesn't change the fact that Churchill was a hardcore imperialist, and that the people who remember him in a less heroic light than we do have their reasons.

At one point Britan even gave gorvernment jobs to the Indians so I really don't know what you mean by "pratically slaves". The two bad things Britan did to India during its imperial rule were:

1. Having a monopoly over the natural recources of India.

2. Using violence to inforce their imperialism.

I agree that Churchill was less than perfect. But overall, how was he? He helped defeat the Nazis and has made many great quotes.

And believe me, Churchill was NOTHING compared to Stalin. The only reason we don't see Stalin as bad as Hitler is he wasn't particularly into the so called "racial clensing" but he murdered far more people than Hitler did.

 

[a4phantom]

At one point Britan even gave gorvernment jobs to the Indians so I really don't know what you mean by "pratically slaves".

How kind. They even gave government jobs to the Indians in India.

The two bad things Britan did to India during its imperial rule were:
1. Having a monopoly over the natural recources of India.
2. Using violence to inforce their imperialism.

If those aren't enough for you they also had a monopoly over the government of India, which the Indians themselves felt to be something "bad".

I agree that Churchill was less than perfect. But overall, how was he? He helped defeat the Nazis and has made many great quotes.

And believe me, Churchill was NOTHING compared to Stalin. The only reason we don't see Stalin as bad as Hitler is he wasn't particularly into the so called "racial clensing" but he murdered far more people than Hitler did.

I'm not arguing that Churchill compares to either Stalin or Hitler. I'll go you one further and admit that he was also no Pol Pot or Mao. He wasn't even Dillinger, Manson or John Wilkes Booth. What does that have to do with anything I said?

I'm glad Churchill was there when he was, I'm Jewish for crying out loud. But great as he was in the way that matters to us, the former subjects of the former empire he tried to retain have their own grievances, and I don't think they're being unreasonable.

 

[caketastydelish]

How kind. They even gave government jobs to the Indians in India.



If those aren't enough for you they also had a monopoly over the government of India, which the Indians themselves felt to be something "bad".



I'm not arguing that Churchill compares to either Stalin or Hitler. I'll go you one further and admit that he was also no Pol Pot or Mao. He wasn't even Dillinger, Manson or John Wilkes Booth. What does that have to do with anything I said?

I'm glad Churchill was there when he was, I'm Jewish for crying out loud. But great as he was in the way that matters to us, the former subjects of the former empire he tried to retain have their own grievances, and I don't think they're being unreasonable.

You have a great point there. All I'm saying is he wasn't as bad as Hilter or Stalin or etc. Thats all. I am aware of the atrocities of the British empire and I'm not trying to defend it or whatever.

 

[Wodan]

Come on. We can't lay the grievances of the British reign in India at Churchill's feet. The British rule was from 1858 to 1947. Churchill was "in charge" of the Empire from 1940 - 1945. And, note that the British rule in 1858 follows the Indian rebellion of 1857 which was in response to the policies (and rule) of the East India Company which began official operations in the year 1600. Followed were years of competition with the French and Dutch of the India trade, including quite a bit of oppressive practices and yes paramilitary operations before the EIC achieved an effective monopoly and governance of the subcontinent.

In any event, anybody who has worked with any government knows how subcontractors work. 1600-1857. And, how the government itself works when it's in control. 1857 - 1940.

Bottom line, we can't way the 340 years at the feet of Churchill. Give him the 5 years during which he had at least a modicrum of control, though to be sure he had other worries at the time.

Regardless, I'm not saying he's a saint. Just that hardly any of the history and policies having to do with India could be attributed to him, good or bad.

Wodan

 

[a4phantom]

I'm not blaming him for the existence of the Empire, or the colonization of India. But he was an ardent supporter of British imperialism. To you and I that's trivial compared to the good he did. To Indians it may not be.

Goodnight guys.

 

[Wodan]

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