And the third:
It was titled
"I disagree with your history, Mr. Pre"
And the body was:
Lenin (who was the catalyst for the communists, not Stalin) was a foot soldier captured by the Germans and sent back to Russia in order to stir up trouble for the Czar (something he did quite well, too). To say that Germany merely 'grew an ego' is a bit of a slap, isn't it? They developed the worst inflation in the history of economics, became what amounted to the whipping boy of France (seriously, how could one grow an ego there, of all places?), watched the Rhineland be stripped of it's resources, the republic that was set up for them by the League of Nations was suppresed by the soldiers of 1, who became the embittered leaders of two. You must remember, Mr. Pre, that the history books are written by the victor, and to say that Germany was in the wrong is due mostly to their having been emptied of useable men in the workforce and military.
So you are correct in saying that they took off separately, but they were caused by the same conflict. Lenin would have been a syphilitic soldier returning from a foolish war had the Germans not given him some cash and a get out of jail card to go stir trouble. Hitler came back a blind veteran pariahed of society because he was a temporarily blind artist in a nation that needed construction workers and bakers. he gathered an army of other disgruntled ex grunts and created the Nazi (National Socialist) party.
So, one could say (as you have done) that Germany just grew an ego, Russia grew some stones, and Italy and Japan had nothing to do, but this is a gross oversimplification! I don't pretend that my two paragraphs are going to well illustrate the causes of two World Wars, but that seems rather foolish. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I am rather offended that you would reduce these monolithic struggles to what reduces to "Germany is full of idiots and anti-Semites who didn't learn their lesson after the first can of whoop ass we brought down on `em". I'm not accusing you of racism, or being anti-Germany/Russia, I just think that you're perhaps basing your argument on a high school history textbook (a very unreliable source, I must say).
As far as the gaming part of your argument, I agree that Halo wasn't the only reason for it's success, and applaud your mention of games such as Morrowind. At the same time, I doubt it would have sold very many people with a line up of Fuzion Frenzy at the beginning.
I didn't mean for my article to come across as if I meant a console would be defined by one game, but I think that the one game series that has Sony execs scared is Halo, and now Gears. I don't think the Xbox was a poor console, I love games like Halo, Crimson Skies, and Battlefront. But if it didn't have a select few in the beginning, it would have likely gone the way of Gizmondo. If Winston Churchill had been killed in the trenches, would we all be speaking German with Erwin Rommel's son as president? I hope not, but had there not been a Halo in the beginning, would we all be applauding Gears new arrival on the PS3? I rather think so.
So, I apologize if my return is not to your liking, Master Pre. I must say that I'm rather known as the `kid you don't debate with' and when I think I have a good argument to be made, I usually don't go home till I think my point has been well made. Please don't think I'm trashing your thoughts, anybody. It's a fault of my own to beat a dead horse. And I daresay that your opinion is quite valid to me.
"Thus, I didst cleave his head that each half did lie upon it's respective shoulder."-Scottish Noble
by Sparton 501 on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:55:06 AM EST [ Parent Reply to This ]
And Master Pre learned a valuable lesson at the hands of Sparton. I guess I'm like Ghost Rider. Just keeping the dream alive.
