As morolf pointed out, this is not the place to discuss this. If you have any idea of "neutral ground", I'd be interested.

Told you already - Trotsky and likes were far-left extremists on the mission to destroy Russian Empire further. It all started after WW1, when RE was betrayed by GB, probably due to RE refusing to support US South States as asked by GB, and support North States. GB payed and organized first Februar Revolution in 1917, then Bolsheviks took the power by ANOTHER Revolution in October of 1917. This caused internal civil war, which was the goal of GB. It was Stalin who ended it as he made the Tsar supporters (white army wing/sympathizers) realize that his interests were to invest into the land and country, which he did. This is the reason why GB started the "Hitler" project.

By GB I specifically mean rich bankers heavily connected to the Queen, but who then moved to US later and established current monetary system of huge credit bubbles (Bretton Wood/Jamaican system), now better known under the term Globalists, - the large global capital. Its interest is always to weaken any strong state and its currently parasiting in the US, but can easily pack up and move to other country.

deleted

Stalin was state man, for state men - there can be only criticism, its not healthy to "like" any politician. Furthermore Stalin was Georgian and leader of USSR, not Russia and not Russian Empire. Its relatively easy to calculate the efficiency of the leader, its just country at the end of his rule minus the country state at beginning on his rule, multiplied by external conditions.

In cause of the Stalin, I think he was extremely talented and dedicated leader. I have only few criticisms against him, like why a guy of his caliber failed to build the replicating balanced governmental system after the 1950 and was surrounded by those, who had more interest in power (careerists) than in implementing his values during his last years. Arguably the careerists in elite circles were also the ones responsible for imploding the USSR, so this could also be linked to criticism of Stalin.

It should also be noted that from the viewpoint of the elite circles (the shark pool), the communist system operates very differently compared to capitalist system, in much harsher conditions: as there are no large paychecks, higher requirements and in the case of the theft - its outright impossible to bribe yourself out of the jail, as the public execution IS welcomed by the crowd (because all state resources are defined as public resources, means stealing them is stealing from the public); where in capitalist system the corruption is a welcome and important part of the process. The human greed and will for control are ofc not corrected by none of the both, so the fight for control in communism moves behind the scenes. That should also be taken into the formula.

As of his overall efficiency, well - took control when the country existence was externally and internally challenged, industrialized the country within 10 years to withstand 80% of collective Europe army (Axis), betrayed by West after WW2 (Truman and Churchill breaking all agreements; Stalin apparently hasn't learned the Nikolai II's lesson), neverless left the country leading in space industry and with a nuclear shield (after being challenged by two nukes in Japan) in the pocket.

Yes, you need to research the reason for Rudolf Walter Richard Heß absurd flight to GB. My position is that Stalin managed to play on Hitler's ego a bit and he went out of control. Before 1941 NZ militaristic offense, GB elite was quite supportive of them.

Yes, but GB itself was not offensive during WW2, while being well supported by USA (especially compared to USSR), while the later was withstanding 80% of Axis power. The V2 was also aimed at GB and not Moscow near the end of the war as if they were some kind of a twisted message.

Neverless, its a good question worth researching. I just find no other explanation of why NZ initial growth was tolerated by GB - and all what runs inside the elite circles of almost any land was usually about power and/or control, not exactly the world of morals, honesty or dignity.

Let's hope not, as it will eventually be so much worse for them ... certainly from a Western perspective, as there could well be an extra racial kind of element, and that would be very sad for all Asians ... everyone really. Of course, that will relate to how much damage is done and how easy the recovery ... which if things go too far, may not be possible.

That said, many turn to war as a solution to financial and economic woes, and if you have been feeding your people propaganda that makes them hate the proclaimed enemy, then going to war becomes that much easier. So much worse when life is valued so cheap by them too. And remember there are other enemies on the sidelines who hate Western Morals and Ideals, waiting for a moment to take advantage.

So I am quite worried about what seems more likely every day.

Don't poke the sleeping "Panda" bear ... even if they do look cute and cuddly.

WW2 games were old-hat 15 years ago, let alone now. Whenever I see yet another WW2 strategy game focused on Eastern or Western front, I roll my eyes and move on, even though that's my main genre. But I guess some people will never, ever get sick of replaying Kursk or Normandy. You know what I'd like to see? Operation Unthinkable. I'd be all over that.

Can't say i want to play any of those games ever. Games need more creativity.

Though i think most of the creativity has been exhausted, platformers are rehashes and reskins of other platformers done better. PvE games where endless waves of identical enemies wearing uniforms or zombies or other. Get the thing into the other thing to score points, save the princess from the castle, arena combat killing dozens or hundreds of enemies in short bursts with guns blades or whipe-like weapons, racing, walking simulators, etc.

I get the feeling the 100 monkeys effect is getting stronger, as i feel like i've played every game ever made...

As I wrote, I would be interested in a discussion, but not here in the GOG forums. It's simply not the right place. Sadly GOG never bothered to set up an Off-Topic/Troll playground (what always happens to political topics, I'm not calling you a troll) area. And their rules are explicitly to not talk politics unless it's tied to gaming. And we've been far from that a while now.

@OP: I don't understand the problem at all. I don't care if I "shoot" Nazis, Robots, or anything else. I know that I am playing a video game and I could not care less about fictional pixel characters.

That's it! Nazi robots! The new trend. Genius!

Robots don't bleed. That's simply not fun :-)

Interested in a discussion but not here....really thats just another way to say "shut up and go elsewhere".
Personally i think Lin545 is completely confused and not worthy of talking to, but...he has the right to post his opinions just like the rest of us, if you remove his right to post his sh*t, then you remove your right to post your sh*t and my right to post my sh*t.
These forums are already full of Devotion returds, full of silly funny mega threads, so whats wrong with politics?
Devotion threads are actually politics and nobody banned them yet.
Yes of course, political debates can turn very sour very fast, but you know what? so can video game debates, or any other debates for that matter.
If you ban political debates on the grounds of maintaining peace and order, you will end up banning all forum threads with the exception of the senile (and off-topic) word game threads, because nowadays any subject can derail into a dumpster fire, looks like peoples nerves are on the edge (understandably), and banning every offensive post wont do nothing to alleviate this situation, on the contrary.

My personal stance on this whole issue can be summed up by this quote:
Hate what you are saying but i will fight for your right to say it.

Or maybe, it is simply sticking to the forum rules.

Unfortunately though GOG does not allow political discussions in their forums that are not game related:

"Political discussions not related to a video game are not permitted. Threads created exclusively to talk about politics will be locked. Users who ignore this rule repeatedly will be met with moderation."

These are simple rules GOG created (like them or not) and since it is their forum and it is up to them what they allow or won't allow people might want to stick to them if they don't want the thread to be locked and I guess toxicTom simply did not want the thread to be locked.

+1 i don't like robots they are so boring, nearly every game has similar style for robots