I was speaking of Stalin-ism that was still in effect up until the 80's but little changed from his time in power and still killing and enacting by policies set during his life. I thought that would be quite obvious since I kept referring to the regime of Hitler instead of calling it the Reich.

Why Waller do you use ancient? People are still alive who witnessed/took part in this war. Here, Dictionary.com has a few definitions for Ancient:
–adjective
1.
of or in time long past, especially before the end of the Western Roman Empire a.d. 476: ancient history.
2.
dating from a remote period; of great age: ancient rocks; ancient trees.
3.
very old; aged: an ancient folk tale.
4.
being old in wisdom and experience; venerable.
5.
old-fashioned or antique.

Seeing as this isn't quite ancient history, and in fact is still quite fresh on the minds of many, it would seem polite to at least respect it. If not, at least have the decency to keep these harsh opinions to yourself.

Remember the atrocities of the past.

I care not for a dictionary's rendering of the term ancient, my words are representative of the youth of today in that aspect, as most college students today dont even know what you speak of when mentioning "the Iron Curtain" and most wouldn't know about the 3rd Reich if it wasn't for movies, and I do respect those who's lives were touched adversely by this "mad man", and what harsh opinion do you refer to ? I do not support Hitler or his regime of madness nor have my words indicated otherwise.

You and a few others keep saying "remember the atrocities of the past" or "we must remember the past or we are doomed to relive it",... yet that is exactly what each of you have asked us to do, and as for many people being offended look at the poll It would indicate otherwise I believe.

Why wouldn't students know about the Third Reich? You learn all that stuff in high school.

I happen to be a youth of today. I also happen to be highly critical of, and pardon me for this, ignorant views on historical events. Do you know why we do not make video games about the JFK assassination, or Columbine? The war itself is fascinating for historians because the way it absolutely changed the face of war forever. Hitler himself, however clever, or respected in Germany, is still the man who had over 6 million Jewish Men, women, and children blood on his hands. Is it not enough to storm the Reichstag and declare victory?

Your harsh opinion is that you callously imply its this "ancient" war, this long dead man who should be featured in games. First of all, WW2 games are getting pretty damn old. Second, why? He killed himself. That is probably the most important thing to remember. He didn't go out in a duel against Roosevelt or slay 25 soldiers. The games where he is shown in footage, that was enough. I don't want a game where I kick down a door and knife him Black Ops style...

So is the USSR, Lennon/Marxism,and the Iron Curtain, yet when polled in colleges around the country less the 30% of those polled recognized those terms, and you will have to admit those terms were used with some regularity not 20 yrs ago.

If any of you that seem to be annoyed by me or offended by my post would read my original posts you would see that I only bring it up mainly because of 1 game,... Civilization and him representing the gov of Germany during wwii scenarios instead of by some1 else who was not in charge of the country during that time,... that was it and if you find my post in bad taste dont keep taking bites out of my butt to see if the flavor has changed because it hasn't, I do not respect the man nor his policies during the war nor b4 the war for that matter.

I have had enough of this post I thought it would have pepole giving real reasons for not using him in video games but most just want to abuse me for even bring the subject up.

I see a lot of bickering, but not a lot of discussion of the original topic. Time for a lock.