Code Geass R2, Episode 14- Geass Hunt

@Crusader

Fair enough Lulu is different because he is sis-con, though you wish to avoid the real world as much as possible I wish to remind you that during their up and coming days,

The reason the “real world” doesn’t apply to Geass is simply because the Geass world is SIMILAR but different from the real world. While we may all like to draw parallels to real-world historical examples, the writing of Geass simply doesn’t measure up. To compare it honestly with real-world dictators/revolutions is disingenuous because it ignores the history and the context of the Geass world by superimposing our own cultural perspective on an alien/alternative world.

So Shirley and her father were at the wrong place at the wrong time, if that is true then we may as well exonerate a man who sets up a bomb in a market place and maims and kills people he did not intend. Here I think we simply disagree on the level of responsibility.

Shirley wasn’t in the wrong place at the wrong time. She made a decision to walk into a battlefield. The basic human response to danger is to avoid it. Instead she walked away from her police escort to jump into a firefight. IDK how you can say Lelouch is wholly responsible for that.

As for Shirley’s father, his death was an unintended casualty of military battle between two forces. Comparing a market place to a mountain where military forces were stationed is really, really unfair. There were no civilians ON the mountain and even Lelouch did not know the EXTENT of the effect Gurren’s reactor would have on the mountain.

NOW, I’m not saying he doesn’t bear SOME, indirect, responsibility for Shirley’s father dying but to paint him as a murderer because he died as a consequence of armed combat between two forces at war is incorrect. No one holds soldiers accountable when their bullets and bombs unintentionally kill civilians during active combat, why would there be special rules for Lelouch if we’re following the same principals of war?

Todou is faux action man we have to take the writer’s words that he is a competent commander rather than see it all play out. By profession I am a soldier and that man cannot plan. He is no leader, he is a samurai with vassals not the equivalent of Patton. Given how Todou can’t win a battle by himself when it counts I think you overestimate the bastard.

Toudoh of Miracles!! Only man to defeat Britannia without a Knightmare!! I don’t think that’s something to you can discount easily. Being able to win a battle when you’re vastly outmanned and outgunned can’t be pure luck alone. He had to have SOME intelligence to pull that off. Give the man SOME credit!

I’ll give you this he is a good pilot…Oh, okay so if Kaguya is by your standards mature I suppose making her ruler of Greater Japan is going to go well.

I’m saying Kaguya is more mature and competent than most of the CURRENT cast of characters. Even by Lelouch’s own standards, she ranks very high on the intellect scale and the only people Lelouch really respects intellectually are Xing Ke, Charles and Schneizel. Having Lelouch’s seal of approval has to count for something.

Nevertheless I don’t trust young idealists, they have a tendency to be manipulated.

Fair Enough!

If Lulu Geasses Nunnally it will be his rape the dog moment though I sense that many like you will still justify it one way or another.

I don’t think Lelouch could bring himself to Geass her, unless he honestly thought it was the only way to bring her happiness (as he did with Shirley) or save her life (as he did with Suzaku). I’m just saying that because Nunnally is “blind” doesn’t mean she CAN’T be Geassed, if it came to that.

Again I remind you that every dictator did something good for someone at some point. Just because they have redeeming qualities does not then wash away the terrible things they did. Stalin was an evil man but he did make Russia and the USSR a superpower. Even now his legacy is not merely written off as being entirely evil. That’s the scary part while you see Lulu as some sort of sympathetic protagonist, I see a bastard whose deeds are terrible.

Lelouch is THE protagonist because that’s how the story/show is written. It’s centered around his struggle against Britannia, not because we want to see him as a protagonist, that’s just how it is. Now, in Season One, one could make the argument that Suzaku was ALSO a protagonist but that’s gone down the shitter this season and he’s clearly AN antagonist to Lelouch’s protagonist.

I say he is little better than the man and the system that he is fighting. He is not a hero in my eye I will not treat him as such. Nevertheless feel free to worship your heroic protagonist.

I never once said he was a hero! He is actually an ANTI-hero. Someone who uses questionable methods to achieve an altruistic goal, similar to Death Note’s protagonist who murders criminals to achieve a good end.

I will not and I guess that is something that your arguments for his innocence will never change. Sorry but nothing you say seems to make me see Lulu in a different light, it all seems like propaganda and half truths to me.

I’m not arguing for Lelouch’s innocence. I’m saying it’s not as black and white as people want to see it. It’s a lot more complex than that. He’s a multi-dimensional character. The way Geass is written, no one is truly innocent (with the exception of Nunnally and possibly Lloyd). Every character has blood on their hands, yet Lelouch is singled out and villified for it.

I have spent my life fighting terrorists, and as Lulu is one I will probably never see him as a heroic protagonist. These are not mere misconceptions, but a difference in moral standards and ethics. Mine are no better or worse than yours so let’s just leave it at that.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Let’s not forget that Britannia forcibly conquered Japan for their resources (Sakuradite) and stripped them of their rights and national identity and forced their citizens, who were non-Britannian into ghettos. Now if anything, that sounds eerily similar to what the Nazis did to the Polish when they invaded back in ’38. One of Lelouch’s goals is restoring what was once taken from the Japanese by a foreign occupant. Remember, Lelouch is fighting AGAINST Britannia and FOR the Japanese. Ultimately, it’s the Japanese who were victimized by Britannian military aggression.

Lelouch, for his part, has not injured a single Japanese citizen during his struggle. Most, if not all, of his casualties have been Britannian. Lelouch is directly standing up and fighting for the downtrodden (even if it’s just to further his own goals, he’s still helping the Japanese gain their independence).

I think people often get repulsed by the magnitude of Lelouch’s immoral actions that they forget the Japanese were worse off before the arrival of Zero. There have been numerous small segments (the Japanese hotdog vendor in Season One, for example) that illustrate how awful the Japanese have it under Britannian rule.

In Summation, I don’t believe Lelouch is a hero. His action illustrate otherwise, but nor is he either. A villain doesn’t risk their life to save others, like Lelouch has done (even recently). I think Lelouch is a complex character that needs to be observed through the context of the world that he was created and lives in. Anything else, would just be subjective bias.

@Suma Sang

I’m glad someone understands me!

^_^

-Lulu as an anti-hero-

An interesting point of view. I rather doubt it is correct though.

Lulu has of yet to show any traditional heroic traits (self-sacrifice, courage beyond the call of duty, etc.). Classifying him as your run of the mill hero is clearly not an option, but even calling him an anti-hero would be to generous in my opinion. I am aware that I am venturing in the realm of opinions here and as such can’t be proven factually correct. Or wrong, which is a bit more convenient seeing as there are some passionate oppinioned people roaming this blog.

I believe that if you boil Lelouch’s character down to its core, you will find that he is motivate by two things: 1. Preventing further emotional trauma to himself. 2. Taking revenge on those who have cause(d) him emotional trauma. Every major decision he has made is a result of one of these two motivations. Becoming Zero -> Finding out who killed his mother and make said person pay dearly. Abandoning the Black Rebellion -> Keeping Nunally safe for his own sake so that she can’t be used to hurt him. The only true development in Lulu’s character seems to be the awareness that he can’t be hurt as easily in the past (He has stronger friends and Nunally is safe and comfortable in her new position as governor of Area 11) and that he has more personal and political manoeuvring space to pursue motivation 2.

Keeping this in mind, he really isn’t any kind of hero (not even an anti-hero). His actions are purely self-serving and rather one-dimensionally.

If someone is looking for a hero though, I recommened Cornelia. Now there is someone to root for. First, her quest is to clear his dead sister’s name. Secondly, she fought V.V. while greatly exposing herself (A veteran like herself probably knew the risks involved with using a jerry-rigged weapons-platform, in the open, below, one of the most deadly KMF in existence). Thirdly, she saved the day in the latest episode, eventhough she probably isn’t really fond of the black knights and their leader. My hero

@Halcyon
We are held accountable for friendly fire and collateral damage, more often or not the man in charge gets sacked or other wise get his career ruined over any such incident. Lulu was fighting next to a settlement there would have been consequences yet it seems that he made no effort to do anything about it. He even let a bunch of JLF guys go down with it. Secondly Lulu did off Japanese indirectly with Euphemia and intentionally when he sank that freighter and the JLF with it. The JLF were Japanese too.

I gave Todou credit for being a good pilot, he has not however proven beyond some obscure battle constantly referenced but never shown, that he is all that he is cracked up to be. If he gives me a victory won but the kin of his teeth then I can say without out a doubt the man is capable. However this miracle seems to have been a fluke. Clearly no miracle occurred when Lulu left back in season 1. I want proof of accomplishment not some word of some idiot writer who has consistently failed to show Todou’s skills as a commander. That’s the point of contention I want to see Todou give a miracle, while you are willing to accept that title despite his accomplishments being anything but miraculous, I want to see him command flawlessly. Granted being the only alleged heterosexual I guess he is worthy of some recognition.

I am repulsed by his idiot insistence that utopia can be built upon the blood of millions. He killed of the JLF he’s not as you say a hero so why bother trying to justify every morally questionable thing he does? Look I am not going to argue with you over the merits of terrorism if you want to support them that is your business I just make it my life’s work to burn them out of their rat holes and gut them, I may sympathize with their cause, but their methods are lacking that is why I kill them. Beyond that I really don’t care about the moral implications of fighting such people they have already chosen to kill and die for their cause I merely oblige them with the death they so foolishly seek.

You call Lulu complex but I think he’s just a more capable bullshitter and prone to emo fits of rage.

@Suma Sang
So you think I give a damn? I just disagree with the lesser evil justification that you use to excuse Lulu’s actions.

@Halcyon
Lulu took Tianzi hostage, and I distinctly remember him pointing a gun at her head. If that is not a terrorist act I don’t know what is. He even went so far to as to kidnap her for his own purposes, she was not even in imminent danger as Li was there. Lulu did let her go but only after he got what he wanted. What would have been the result if Tianzi did not wish to cooperate, or if Li had said no? The guys on the freighter had nothing to do with the hostage taking, and up until that point they had been conducting a more conventional fight with their stupid little fortress of doom in the mountains with turrets. It was only a small faction that took hostages, not even Todou and his old boss were in approval of it. Todou was once JLF too.

This has gone far enough into morality and philosophy as I have said before Lulu is your anti-hero, but all I see is a scum bag. As far as I can tell Lulu is just drawing from the same emotional arguments put forth by communists to end Western domination the rhetoric is the same equality for all, a better world, we being oppressed, so on and so forth. A world where every one is equal is a utopia it has never come into existence, it is perfect in that sense. Sure he’s saving a few, but those he saves then go on to kill others, and enforce their dominion over other peoples. They were still shooting women and children with out provocation though you probably think that it was necessary and therefore not a crime. I guess they are better off now because instead of being victims of war they are prosecutors of war. Instead of just receiving death they now dole it out to others.

I agree that he is multifaceted but nonetheless for me his virtues are outweighed by his sins. Just because Charles is a douche bag does not mean that Lulu can’t be one as well.

His goals are noble yes but given the amount of death needed to get there is the cost in the end going to be worth it. I don’t think it is but you do. Suffice to say we will never agree. You are an optimist, I am a cynic. That’s all there is to it.

@Suma Sang
Look he’s your freedom fighter, but my terrorist. There was once a man who fought against Imperialists and Western Domination of his state, he tried to make a world where all were equal, and that no man was richer than his neighbor. He wanted to build a nation where there was no property where every one could be happy free from want of food, clothing, and money at a time when a lot of people were poor and starving. It was a noble cause, a just cause. However along the way millions died because he had miscalculated when he tried to walk away he felt that his work was being undone, and that the people were backsliding, so for their own good he got rid of a few thousand of them to start anew. Sadly there were more people who wanted to go back to how things were, so he got rid of more people, and the cycle continued. The thing you have to remember about such noble causes is that it can easily become justification for more terrible acts. I know the price of such idealism given form, don’t think that I am naive for distrusting the “ends justify the means” mentality. If any thing if you believe that there can be a cause worth such bloodshed then we can never agree.

Again he’s a hero in your eyes not mine. That is not me being naive that is me not trusting the honeyed words of a demagogue. At the end of the day Lulu is a consummate politician like every other politician he is a lair he talks a good talk, but his methods make me sick. Sorry that my sense of right and wrong are different from yours, but if you want me to just focus on Lulu’s heroics you are out of luck. Lulu reminds me of every other revolutionary, just with a tinge of sis-con. Lulu will never be a hero even you concede that. Lulu is engaging in some dirty business in war the only heroes are the ones who are dead, Lulu is alive he is no hero.

If Lulu wanted to keep the body count low he could have shut his fucking gob and just cheated his way to the throne. There is no justice in war. There is nothing good about war, not even its end. Yes his cause is just, he has done some good he has done a lot of bad. You see it all hinges on whether or not you can overlook enough of the bad to see the good. For me Lulu has done more bad than good to qualify for “Hero of Justice.” Britannia is evil, but they pure evil they don’t pretend to even care. Lulu on the other hand mixes his evil with a little bit of good this to me is rather hypocritical severe to some kind to others how is this equal? Why even rank them? Lying to his men, letting Euphie bear all the stigma of his little accident, leaving Kallen to rot in the hands of Suzaku, not offing Rolo when he had the chance, killing off the JLF and pretending that they an heroed themselves. No apologies will make up for what he did.

Look I know that he’s trying to do the right thing, but he is failing at it from my point of view. He still did kill women and children there, just because it was deemed necessary does not absolve him of shooting unarmed people. Given that C2 still had some support and Rolo was still one Rolo-nii, coupled with Orange-kun’s Geass canceler a siege with no quarter was not the only option. He chose revenge on a group of people who were only tangentially involved. I don’t like the idea of becoming little better than your enemies for the sake of winning. Just because Japan was killing POWs and murdering and raping civilians doesn’t mean that the US should have in turn adopted such policies at Tarawa, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.

Realistically I know the things that need to be done, slaughtering unarmed people before they have a chance to surrender is not one that I would deem necessary or ever justified. Lulu did not try and sort out who was who he just lied so that they would all die. In 1941 Japan and Germany were winning the war, but does that mean that the Allies should have started rounding up undesirables and gassing them en masse? Should the Allies have adopted the burn all, kill all, loot all Policy of Japan? It’s easy to say you will fight fire with fire, but I doubt you know the full implication of such vague statements.

I think it is naive to call for more blood more death as a means of winning, and that the ends always justify the means. Tell me could you bring yourself to kill a child? Could you shoot an old man? Could you kill an enemy who has surrendered to you? Could you shoot a woman and her child? If your leader told you that it was necessary to do it for the sake of Freedom could you pull that trigger? Even if the enemy is hated, it still takes a lot of malice to pull that trigger. That or a lot of booze.

It’s easy to say these things because Britannia is evil, but so was the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany. I don’t think that you have to become evil to defeat evil. If not being able to pull the trigger on unarmed people make me naive then so be it. I’d rather be a fool than a criminal. For Lulu war is a continuation of politics as a means to an end, I think that war is not a continuation of policy it is a failure of policy.

I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of the cries for war — its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

@Crusader

Lulu took Tianzi hostage, and I distinctly remember him pointing a gun at her head. If that is not a terrorist act I don’t know what is. He even went so far to as to kidnap her for his own purposes, she was not even in imminent danger as Li was there.

Again, we have to put that event in its proper context. Tianzi was being sold off by the Eunuchs to Britannia. He merely did the same thing Xing Ke was attempting to do. Stop the wedding and prevent Britannia from expanding their grasp on power.

Was Tianzi in any danger while she was with Lelouch? Absolutely not. Did he return her to Xing Ke once the threat of the Eunuch was eliminated? Yes.

Was it a criminal act? Absolutely yes, but I don’t think it falls within the bounds of “terrorism”. I think Lelouch could’ve used Tianzi as a pawn to further his schemes but opted to let her decide her OWN future. I don’t know many terrorists that would give their victims that same freedom of choice.

Lulu did let her go but only after he got what he wanted. What would have been the result if Tianzi did not wish to cooperate, or if Li had said no?

How did she cooperate? She never agreed to any of his political proposals. In the end, he let her go to decide her own fate, thanks to Shirley’s advice. It was clear the only reason he took her was to prevent the Eunuchs from forming an alliance with Britannia. He essentially rescued her from a marriage she didn’t want.

Could Xing Ke have pulled it off by himself without Lelouch’s interference? We’ll never know. He certainly did have the infrastructure set up to execute his coup d’etat but then again, the show isn’t about Xing Ke’s struggle against the Chinese Federation. It’s about Lelouch’s struggle against Britannia. lol

The guys on the freighter had nothing to do with the hostage taking, and up until that point they had been conducting a more conventional fight with their stupid little fortress of doom in the mountains with turrets. It was only a small faction that took hostages, not even Todou and his old boss were in approval of it. Todou was once JLF too.

I’ll give you this point. There’s no evidence to suggest the remaining JLF were involved in the hostage taking but let me ask you this:

If you see an identified terrorist GROUP, do you stop to ask yourself if each individual member is involved in a particular terrorist act or do you shoot first and ask questions later?

This has gone far enough into morality and philosophy as I have said before Lulu is your anti-hero, but all I see is a scum bag.

Everyone in Code Geass is a scumbag (except Nunnally) but Lelouch is the protagonist of the story. There’s no way around that fact.

As far as I can tell Lulu is just drawing from the same emotional arguments put forth by communists to end Western domination the rhetoric is the same equality for all, a better world, we being oppressed, so on and so forth. A world where every one is equal is a utopia it has never come into existence, it is perfect in that sense. Sure he’s saving a few, but those he saves then go on to kill others, and enforce their dominion over other peoples.

He’s saved Britannian and Japanese alike. Most were either students of Ashford, tourists and your average Japanese schlub.

They were still shooting women and children with out provocation though you probably think that it was necessary and therefore not a crime.

The only women and children Lelouch has killed was the Geass Cult, which…as you’ve seen even the kids of Geass did not hesitate to use their Geass on someone who wasn’t a part of the cult.

I guess they are better off now because instead of being victims of war they are prosecutors of war. Instead of just receiving death they now dole it out to others.

Not all of the Japanese are engaged in Lelouch’s revolution but all of the Japanese seek to benefit from it. You’re generalizing too much without looking at the big picture.

Let’s not also forget that Lelouch has support from outside Japan as well which includes China and India.

I agree that he is multifaceted but nonetheless for me his virtues are outweighed by his sins. Just because Charles is a douche bag does not mean that Lulu can’t be one as well.

Oh, absolutely. But the litmus test again is, are the Japanese better off with Lelouch or without?

Without Lelouch they’re slaves with no freedom. With Lelouch, at least 1 million Japanese have been freed from their bondage and many more have a fighting chance at gaining independence.

His goals are noble yes but given the amount of death needed to get there is the cost in the end going to be worth it. I don’t think it is but you do. Suffice to say we will never agree. You are an optimist, I am a cynic. That’s all there is to it.

I’m a realist. Every revolution requires substantial bloodshed, even Lelouch acknowledges and accepts this. The American Revolution and French Revolution are prime examples of this. There is no such thing as a non-violent revolution. The one guy who TRIED to pull off one (Ghandi) was shot for his efforts. See the irony there?

You can’t combat an oppressive militaristic imperialist regime with harsh words, you’re going to have to get your hands dirty.

If Lelouch was a squeaky clean protagonist that did everything the “nice” way, we might as well be watching Yu-Gi-Oh because it would be that boring. One of the testaments to how “good” Code Geass is, is the fact that it stirs controversy with its characters and garners this much attention and discussion.

@Halcyon

To be honest my view of the start of the Tianzi affair was “An amiable dullard gets married off to a sheltered twit, grants of citizenship and patents of nobility for everyone and Everybody Gets to Live. Hurray!” Props to Schneizel, stood to work.

Also worth pointing out the Geass kids were doing their level best to flee a massacre and surrenders weren’t being honored.

And I wouldn’t call any japanese working for Lelouch “free”. Or there primarily by Lelouch’s efforts. Face it, the fact those million people aren’t so many charred corpses in a mass grave is because Suzaku Kururugi is a Son of Japan and had hit on a workable plan, and Nunnally Vi Britannia is not a puppet of anyone, her profoundly emotionally damaged brother most of all and sticks to her guns. And Lelouch is using them to reforge a jailhouse of nations.

@Halcyon
Look Lulu did not kill off the JLF because they were terrorists he killed them off so that that he would be the only leader left that they could turn to. He needed Todou but as long as the JLF was still around he could not have him.

You say Gandhi failed I think you are fool if you think that he achieved nothing. He was shot yes, but that does not mean that he failed India had seen its share of violent rebellions, all of which failed to end the Raj. Gandhi and his policy of non-cooperation succeeded where armed revolution had failed.

The thing you rebel sympathizers fail to realize is that war is the last option you should ever take. No every rebellion is for the better. Sure it is the quickest way, but it is also the one that leads to death, destruction, and poverty.

The Geass kids acted well after the no quarter order was given given how Lulu was calling for a massacre how is it that the elevens are justified in killing them for a better future while they are villains for defending them selves the only way they can?

Lulu does not have to be squeaky clean, but now he’s at the point where he can laugh at the slaughter and order his men to do it on a whim. I know that for you the revolution can never be vilified and that is your luxury not mine. Just because you have never suffered the consequences of revolution does not mean I share such a luxury. Just because he is the protagonist does not mean I have to sympathize with him if I disagree with his philosophy and methods. All you are doing is making excuses for him. The crux of your argument is the same every time “Lulu’s goals are worth the price being paid” for you the goal is already so good that anything done to further it justified even if it is terrible. There is no point in arguing because I will never accept such a philosophy.

Look I know you love the idea of revolution and the mistaken notion that war is but a small affair. This is a difference in philosophy that no amount of your enthusiasm for the Lulution can change. In my experience revolutions have caused more problems than they have solved.

I say again, I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of the cries for war — its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

@Halcyon
You claimed that Lulu did not kill Japanese, the JLF were Japanese.

Gandhi was killed after he achieved independence for them the Raj, his goals were attained the Raj was over by the time he was shot.

Again it all depends on whether or not you believe that Lulu has entered villain territory, You say that those kids were ticking time bombs and that alone justifies their slaughter. Using that same line of thinking every Middle Eastern Kid is a terrorist waiting to happen, yet would it be justified if I slaughtered them all? I think not.

Oh yes slavery… I never heard of any slave that actually got paid. How else could they get refrain? You say slavery, but it is not, it is oppression of a defeated people, but it is not slavery. You throw around that term carelessly, slavery implies much harsher conditions than have been demonstrated. Given how there is an active drug trade it must mean that the elevens are getting money from somewhere, so since they are being paid I can’t say that this is slavery in the true definition.

Cornelia gets pass because her victim was the immortal V2, she didn’t actually kill him mind you…nor was she laughing and relishing in the act.

Good for you that you can relate to a man capable of mass murder for a most just cause. I however do not relate to such things. Nor can I imagine myself shooting up a whole people just for revenge. Sure he’s interesting, but that does not mean I have to like him. I don’t, I won’t and that is all there is to it. Shinji Ikari was a protagonist too, I never liked him, and I have no obligation to like Lulu.

@Halcyon

You claimed that Lulu did not kill Japanese, the JLF were Japanese.

I claimed he didn’t kill innocent Japanese. The JLF were hardly innocent.

Gandhi was killed after he achieved independence for them the Raj, his goals were attained the Raj was over by the time he was shot.

You left out the fact that upon attaining independence violent conflict erupted between Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in 1947.

Again it all depends on whether or not you believe that Lulu has entered villain territory, You say that those kids were ticking time bombs and that alone justifies their slaughter.

A Villain is defined as the antithesis of the hero the story. Since Lelouch has already been defined as the protagonist of Code Geass there’s no way he can be the ‘villain’. Has he committed acts of villainy? Yes! But he’s still the protagonist.

Using that same line of thinking every Middle Eastern Kid is a terrorist waiting to happen, yet would it be justified if I slaughtered them all? I think not.

Except every Middle Eastern kid doesn’t have superpowers that can murder you just by making eye contact.

Again, Context!!

Oh yes slavery… I never heard of any slave that actually got paid. How else could they get refrain?

Have you ever heard of indentured servitude? I say “slavery” because they have no free will. Their lives are controlled by their conquerors. Disobedience leads to imprisonment, or worse death. That doesn’t sound like a “free” society to me.

You say slavery, but it is not, it is oppression of a defeated people, but it is not slavery. You throw around that term carelessly, slavery implies much harsher conditions than have been demonstrated. Given how there is an active drug trade it must mean that the elevens are getting money from somewhere, so since they are being paid I can’t say that this is slavery in the true definition.

I use the term slavery for dramatic effect. But the simple fact remains that this people are not ‘free’. They are at the mercy of a foreign occupant and deprived of their basic liberties and national identity. That is a fact!

Cornelia gets pass because her victim was the immortal V2, she didn’t actually kill him mind you…nor was she laughing and relishing in the act.

Cornelia didn’t know he was immortal though, or that V2 was her uncle. All she saw was a kid who crept up from behind and she immediately threw a knife at his forehead and then coldly turned away.

She didn’t try to confirm whether or not he had a Geass before attacking him or if he was a threat. She attacked first and didn’t even think twice about the fact that he appeared to be a child. She brushed it off and justified it as killing him because she DIDNT KNOW what kind of Geass he had. That’s very similar to Lelouch wiping out the Cult because they had Geass, don’t you think?

Good for you that you can relate to a man capable of mass murder for a most just cause.

Mass murder?

The only “masses” Lelouch has murdered was the JLF. Every other death was the result of active combat between two military forces or casualties attributed to a military campaign.

I however do not relate to such things. Nor can I imagine myself shooting up a whole people just for revenge.

See above.

Sure he’s interesting, but that does not mean I have to like him. I don’t, I won’t and that is all there is to it. Shinji Ikari was a protagonist too, I never liked him, and I have no obligation to like Lulu.

You don’t have to like him! But to target him as the only douchebag in CG is discriminatory. He’s not even the biggest douchebag! Charles is! Spread the hate man!!!

ANYWAY! Having said that, I’m super excited to see how Charles vs Lelouch in the World of C will play out on Sunday!

@Halcyon
Look just because the Hindus and Muslims went at it in 1947 does not mean Gandhi was unsuccessful.

I never said he was unsuccessful. Again, you’re making assumptions. I merely stated that even in nonviolent revolutions, violence does occur. Conflict is inevitable when you have two diametrically opposed forces that will not compromise their ideals or goals.

One mass murder is all it takes just because you deem the eradication of the cult as necessary does not make it any less of a crime.

I didn’t deem it necessary! The writers of Code Geass did! I just agreed with them.

Not everyone there had superpowers and is not a suicide bomber or airplane hijacker just as devastating as a geass kid?

I’ve never seen a child suicide bomber or an child airplane hijacker.

You are being far too selective with your title of innocent. Lulu was ultimately responsible for the massacre in season 1.

Nowhere did I say Lelouch was “innocent” of anything. I’ve openly admitted on many of my responses that Lelouch’s methods are repugnant.

What I have said, multiple times, is that within the CONTEXT of the world that Lelouch lives in, his methods are no more reprehensible than those of his opponents.

Just because it was an accident does not mean he was not responsible and make it a purely Britannian massacre. This is why I loathe such ideas the very idea that some massacres and not others are allowable, you diminish the scale of Lulu’s crimes citing justification.

LOL It was an accident. If someone hands you a gun and the gun goes off in your hand accidentally and someone gets shot, does that make you a murderer by proxy?
His Geass went off on accident. The results were purely incidental.

Of course there are other baddies in Code Geass however your mission seems to try and cast a better light on Lulu because his justifications are more pleasant sounding.

No, that’s not correct. My mission is to correct this aberrant thinking that Lelouch is the greatest evil in Code Geass. He’s action are reprehensible but his results are mixed. He has accomplished good things as well as bad. It’s entirely false to paint Lelouch as purely evil or purely good. He’s a mixture of both.

Some of you seem to selectively portray only his negative qualities when discussing his character, which prompts me (and possibly others) to even it out by reminding you of the proper CONTEXT of those actions.

The man laughed as his victims screamed in terror, as his men butchered them on false pretext.

Oh c’mon now, that just means he has a healthy sense of humor!

Cornelia kills because she had to she did not relish in the act as Lulu did. He was laughing manically as his men shot everything that moved.

Because she had to? Of what threat did V.V pose to Cornelia before she chucked daggers at his forehead? LOL. Cornelia is a Britannian Princess. She couldn’t care less about any non-Britannian. She may not relish the carnage, but she’s certainly indifferent to it!

Tell me one thing, are you going to turn against Cornelia when she joins Lelouch’s merry band of murderers?

You put Lulu on a pedestal and I thought that was what we were discussing Lulu, your hero.

LOL. How have I put him on a pedestal? I’ve openly admitted that his actions are BAD. I never claimed he was a hero. I’ve specifically said ANTI-hero. LOL.

What I’m doing, and have been doing since this discussion started, is providing a Yin to your Yang.

Again there are other ass-hats, but Lulu is not special he is little better than Charles. Just because he makes a more eloquent argument to justify his crimes does not mean his acts are no less criminal than those of Charles.

Lelouch is better than Charles. That’s all that matters! If Charles is Hitler then Lelouch is Stalin and who would you rather have in power, Hitler or Stalin?

@Halcyon
Hmm…by buying into their justification you are justifying it.

Those suicide bombers were kids once, or do they magically appear from some unknown source?

Look just because it was an accident does not mean that Lulu is not at fault. lastly any one who hands some one else a loaded weapon with round chambered and safety off is still liable in the court of law for gross negligence. Honestly if you do that you deserve to go to jail for being an ignoramus, any responsible gun owner would know how to clear his weapon before handing it off. It was more like a car accident but Lulu was driving drunk. We do not excuse people for their gross negligence in a court of law. Why should this accident be any different? It’s not like we can simply put all that death be hind them and let by gones be bygones. Lulu was not only at fault he threw Euphie under a bus while he was at it. That was a double betrayal of the truth and Euphie. Perhaps it is as you say not second degree murder but it was Euphicular manslaughter, and that pal means jail 15 years minimum.

How is thinking that Lulu is just about as evil as Charles abberant (improper)? Look just because you might be a sis-con yourself does not mean that us non-sis cons are wrong…

Seriously there is no right or wrong here, he’s your dear protagonist there is no arguing with that. Honestly if given a choice between having a Hitler or a Stalin, Hitler is the way to go. Because you see Stalin killed many more people, Hitler was incompetent Stalin however survived into old age. Hitler you could evade for a time and with greater success, Stalin just grabbed people willy nilly. Don’t be silly you have no idea what Stalin was capable of if you think Hitler was some how more or less evil. The difference you see was never about which one was more evil, the difference lay in their methods. Stalin was just as evil but far more competent, Hitler was evil to boot, but ultimately proved to be an idiot.

@Calawain
Quite you, I am taking half credit!

@Crusader

Hmm…by buying into their justification you are justifying it.

LOLWUT?

Those suicide bombers were kids once, or do they magically appear from some unknown source?

Everyone was a kid once. That makes no sense. The point is, the Geass Children weren’t some innocent people that had the potential of becoming dangerous. They were already dangerous. They possessed abilities similar to Rolo and Mao. Who’s to say what would’ve happened if they were allowed to continue?

Let’s not forget the Geass Cult was led by V.V. who sent 2 assassins to eliminate Lelouch already. Was he supposed to sit and wait for more assassins to show up at his door before taking appropriate action? Why not eliminate the source of the problem instead of doing it piece by piece? That sounds like a sound military strategy to me!

Look just because it was an accident does not mean that Lulu is not at fault. lastly any one who hands some one else a loaded weapon with round chambered and safety off is still liable in the court of law for gross negligence.

LOL So you’re saying C.C. would be liable for handing Lelouch the Geass in the first place?

Again, you’re taking the show out of its context. You can’t apply our legal standards to Geass. It’s a different world and a different culture. It’s like going to a foreign country and telling their people their laws are stupid because they’re not the same as yours.

Honestly if you do that you deserve to go to jail for being an ignoramus, any responsible gun owner would know how to clear his weapon before handing it off.

Here’s the difference. Lelouch is not an experienced gun owner. The Geass itself is unlike any weapon in the world. He had no idea it would spontaneously and randomly go off. It was an unprecedented event.

It was more like a car accident but Lulu was driving drunk. We do not excuse people for their gross negligence in a court of law. Why should this accident be any different?

See above

It’s not like we can simply put all that death be hind them and let by gones be bygones. Lulu was not only at fault he threw Euphie under a bus while he was at it. That was a double betrayal of the truth and Euphie.

If he hadn’t told his troops that Euphie’s special administrative zone was a trap, more japanese people would have died.

Did you really expect him to say “Hey guys, guess what? I have this superpower that makes anyone do whatever I tell them to do and it accidentally went off while I was talking to Euphemia and caused her to kill tons of Japanese people. My bad!”

That would be the end of the show and there wouldn’t be a Season Two. LOL
You’re not thinking logically.

Perhaps it is as you say not second degree murder but it was Euphicular manslaughter, and that pal means jail 15 years minimum.

It’s not manslaughter if someone is holding a an automated machine gun and shooting people in a crowded area. It’s self-defense. And we normally don’t prosecute people for self-defense. Or for stopping people from killing.

If that were the case, every police officer who ever shot a suspect to prevent them from further killing would be getting 15 years prison sentence instead of a commendation.

How is thinking that Lulu is just about as evil as Charles abberant (improper)?

Because he isn’t. It’s already been shown that Lelouch has a core fundamental difference than Charles. Charles believes in a world of segregation, of haves and have-nots, of superior and inferior people. Lelouch believes in a world of equal opportunity. Lelouch’s ultimate goal is to find out the truth behind his mother’s murder and to help protect Nunnally. Charles’ ultimate goal is to control the world and “kill the gods”.

The two use similar methods but they’re not the same.

Look just because you might be a sis-con yourself does not mean that us non-sis cons are wrong…

LOLWUT? Lelouch cares about more than just his sister. He “doesn’t want to lose anyone else”, which is why he dove off the roof to save Shirley.

That’s not something Charles would EVER do for his own family, let alone a close friend.

Seriously there is no right or wrong here, he’s your dear protagonist there is no arguing with that. Honestly if given a choice between having a Hitler or a Stalin, Hitler is the way to go. Because you see Stalin killed many more people, Hitler was incompetent Stalin however survived into old age.

LOLWUT? I’m glad you weren’t in charge of WWII forces. With that thinking, we’d all be speaking German right now. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from but Stalin died in 1953, which was only 8 years after Hitler committed suicide.

The number of estimated deaths attributed to Stalin’s great purge was approximately 950,000 to 1.2 million. That is considerably less than the amount of death Hitler was responsible for.

The issue isn’t “who’s killed more people” but who was the bigger threat to the world. Sure, Stalin killed millions of people, but he never tried to conquer the world. He was the “lesser evil”, in much the same way Lelouch is the “lesser evil” in Code Geass.

More people have been killed in Darfur than in Iraq. You don’t see US military forces jumping into to depose the regime in Darfur, even though the constant murder there has been classified as GENOCIDE. Why is that? Because the Janjaweed in Darfur don’t pose a threat to the world. It’s not the quantity of victims that is the most important determination in military engagement, it’s the magnitude of the threat that the other side poses.

Hitler you could evade for a time and with greater success, Stalin just grabbed people willy nilly.

Are you serious? How did the 6 million Jews evade Hitler? Stalin didn’t “grab people willy nilly”, he grabbed political opponents and people who could oppose him within the Communist Party. Most of the deaths he was responsible for were from Trotsky’s supporters within the Communist Party. It’s not like these people were hard to find. They were already part of the party.

Don’t be silly you have no idea what Stalin was capable of if you think Hitler was some how more or less evil.

See above.

The difference you see was never about which one was more evil, the difference lay in their methods. Stalin was just as evil but far more competent, Hitler was evil to boot, but ultimately proved to be an idiot.

How was he an idiot? LOL. He conquered most of Europe. It’s not Hitler’s fault that the Japanese, in their infinite wisdom, decided to attack the Americans and get them involved in the War. Without American involvement, Hitler would’ve conquered the rest of France and moved in on England.

The only -real- tactical error Hitler made was invading Russia and breaking their non-aggression pact. That was stupid. But he’s not the only one to underestimate the Russian winter. Napolean made that same error some 100 years earlier.

@Halcyon
Look Stalin offed roughly 2 million civilians during the great purge and roughly 410,000 military personnel.

During Collectivization there were an estimated 12 million deaths because you know that was the policy then too.

I’ve not seen any statistics regarding any deaths directly attributed to Collectivization so I can’t really opine on that.

In Mongolia Stalin killed of somewhere between 20,000-100,000 people roughly 4% of then the total population. Another 230,000 POWs show cam back from captivity in Germany were executed, under Order no. 270 and no. 227.

That’s still, considerably less, than the number of victims massacred by the SS.

As for not wanting to conquer the world Stalin was making moves in Korea, and let’s not forget the fate of Eastern Europe or were those people allowed to build ginger bread houses and gumdrop lanes?

Stalin didn’t “make moves on Korea”. Korea was divided up by the US and the Soviet Union after the Japanese Occupants were defeated in WWII. The USSR stopped their advance on Korea at the 38th parallel as per their agreement. Both the US and the USSR set up provisional governments that eventually declared independence due to their competing ideological philosophies.

Now while 6 million Jews did perish there were people who willingly tried to help them Schindler, Wilhelm Canaris, Raoul Wallenberg, the Danes, and many other notable people who were able to stand up for what was right. You see Stalin created an atmosphere of fear where no one was really willing to help out their fellows, the NKVD had agents or it seemed to have agents everywhere.

Fair Enough. There’s no evidence to show that Russians were aided by their fellow countrymen. I’ll “lend” you that point, until I can find sufficient historical evidence to disprove it.

Go ahead and LOL if that is your prerogative because you share the ability to laugh at the deaths of people because they are a mere statistic to you…

I “LOL” because your reasoning is sporadic, emotional and entirely biased. You, continue, to take events out of context to fit your predisposed beliefs.

Lastly Hitler did not conquer almost all of Europe his generals did, and when Hitler took command it always ended badly.

LOL!! By that Logic, Lelouch did not kill most of those Britannians. His Soldiers did.

You sir obviously know nothing of the war given your claim that Hitler was some military genius who nearly conquered all of Europe.

Where did I make the claim that Hitler was a military genius?

I merely stated the fact that the only tactical error Hitler committed was breaking the non-aggression pact with the USSR. He had to have SOME intelligence to have a semi-successful campaign. If he was as stupid as you say, then why was he responsible for nearly conqueroring all of Europe? He may not have been militarily gifted, but to write him off as “stupid” is just wrong and not supported by the facts.

The invasion of Russia was a Strategic error, comrade, you do not know much about the war, you don’t even know much about military operations if you call Operation Barbarossa a tactical mistake.

I already said that invading Russia was a mistake.. Where’s your issue with that? LOL

Your words were galling and impudent. Clearly you never did brush up on your Russian History, I suggest you do more research on Russia. I’d comment on the Geass crap but your “LOLWUT? I’m glad you weren’t in charge of WWII forces. With that thinking, we’d all be speaking German right now. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from but Stalin died in 1953, which was only 8 years after Hitler committed suicide.” really crossed the line. Lastly Stalin died a natural death at age of 74 that’s pretty darn old if you ask me.

The point is, your logic is to ignore the bigger threat in favor of stemming more casualties. That is fallacious reasoning of the highest sort.

You never did answer my question about Cornelia.

When she joins Lelouch and officially sanctions him as her ally will you repudiate her as you’ve done Lelouch?

Evidence shows that Cornelia doesn’t blame Lelouch for Euphie’s death. She blames the Geass and the source of the Geass is the Geass Cult.

So WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO, BROTHER, WHEN LELOUCHMANIA RUNS WILD ON YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

@Crusader

The Geass debate is dead. Let’s leave it at that.

Awww, that’s such a copout!!

If you knew anything about modern war then you know the difference between strategy and tactics.

Fair enough. My knowledge of military procedures IS limited. I’m not denying that.

You see sir, Hitler did take command in 1944 at the Bulge he ordered an offensive that his tanks could not even hope to manage given that even if the Panthers drove straight on to Brussels they would not have had enough fuel. The Fall of France was von Manstien’s plan not Hitler’s. At Stalingrad Hitler ordered the Sixth Army to fight to death while his general staff protested and von Manstien was begging Paulus to breakout. By the time Hitler gave permission it was too late. Hitler’s insistence on no retreat made the German defense of their gains all but impossible, Guederian, von Manstien, and just about every other general not in the SS were pleading that a mobile defense would be better than fighting battles of attrition. The disaster at Kursk was instigated because Hitler needed a victory to keep his allies in the war. At Normandy Hitler split the command between Rommel and von Rundstedt and basically deployed their forces in a manner that made both men unhappy and compromised whatever plans they had for the defense against Overlord. At the same place Hitler did not allow von Rundstedt to use his armored reserve until it was too late as he still insisted that Normandy was a diversion. Hitler, comrade was no military genius. He had a talented General Staff that was left over from the previous administration. When he listened they did well, when he did not they failed. Hitler was nothing more than Corporal, he was in fact militarily stupid.

I never claimed that Hitler was a military genius. But just because he had no gift for combat, himself, does not take away from his accomplishments and achievements. You can’t say he had no hand in conquering most of Europe, because ultimately, he’s the leader. The Top Banana. The Head Honcho. The Ichiban! Just as his losses are his responsbilities, his victories are also. You can’t deny him credit as Commandant!

You underestimate the ingenuity of the Soviets, they were a more significant threat in later years than you can possibly imagine, their spy rings were pervasive, they had plenty of men like Philby and his Cambridge Five.

I’m going to highlight the KEY PHRASE there because it’s important to note that: In that specific time frame when you compare Hitler and Stalin, Hitler was much more of a threat to global security than Stalin was. Stalin did not have an “axis” to rely on. For the most part, Stalin’s “allies” included conquered terrorities that were liberated from the Japanese. Those terroritories were all too willing to welcome the Soviets as liberators from their Japanese oppressors.

Stalin only became a threat after WWII. And even then, there were no direct military confrontations between the USSR and the US. Only proxy wars fought mostly in Korea, Afghanistan and other third-world territories.

Richard Sorge gave Stalin accurate intel on Japanese intentions and the Soviets did manage to reverse engineer the B-29 and steal enough information to help them make their own nuclear arsenal. Their rapid achievement of a nuclear arsenal is a testament to the cunning and skill of the Soviets. They far outstripped Hitler in this regard. So tell me who is the bigger threat the dictator with a nuclear arsenal or the one with out?

Again, Crusader, you’re losing CONTEXT. At the time of WWII. No one had a nuclear arsenal. Or nuclear capability (until the Americans achieved a usable weapon first).

If you’re going to compare the two you have to do it honestly and equally. Otherwise, it’s not a fair comparison.

Honestly they were both a threat Stalin however was the more competent one, its not about numbers Stalin was calculating where Hitler was emotional. Stalin made fewer mistakes than Hitler and it does show.

Hitler was an eccentric! Stalin may have been more militarily competent but it’s debateable if he was a ‘larger threat’ than Hitler. After all, Stalin only survived for another 8 years after Hitler’s fall. The Soviet’s didn’t even TEST their first atomic bomb until August 29, 1949. 4 Years before Stalin’s death. The Soviets also had no known domestic sources of uranium ore. The first Soviet nuclear reactor used uranium that was confiscated from the German atomic bomb project. It wasn’t until much later that the Soviets discovered domestic supplies of Uranium.

The first Soviet test of the hydrogren bomb occured in August 12, 1953. Four months AFTER Stalin had already died. So it’s a little misleading to say that Stalin was a dictator with a nuclear arsenal.

One could make the argument that, if not for Germany losing the war, the Soviets would have no fissible material with which to start their nuclear program.

The Soviets were STILL testing nuclear weapons before AND AFTER Stalin had died. So again, it’s debateable how much of a threat he was because he had no known nuclear arsenal.

In that respect, Stalin is comparable to today’s Kim Jong Il.

I eagerly await your rebuttal ^___________________^

@Halcyon
Look at this point arguing any more about Lulu is like arguing about religion it’s pointless. Also you have already been using CAPS LOCK long enough, I know cruise control for cool.

Just because FDR was President does not mean that he was the victor at Midway. Germany conquered much of Europe in spite of Hitler not because of him. The military build up was already underway long before 1933. Hitler loved to take credit for everything that went right, but you will find that beyond his honeyed lies is some lesser known commander. By your reasoning Hitler was responsible for all of Rommel’s victories because Hitler was Fuhrer. You fail to understand that Hitler was able to do what he did because the German military was world class, the Wehrmacht was the harbinger of modern warfare. The Heer was ahead in doctrine, communications, unit tactics, and combined arms attacks. If Hitler had only the Italian Army he would not have conquered much at all. Hitler had the will to use a world class military for conquest. He was ambitious and he did surround himself with reliable cronies and sack any one who was a threat to him regardless of their expertise.

Your definition of context is funny and strange the events I mentioned all involved Stalin, but sure… In 1944 Stalin was a biggest threat to global security because the German defeat was a forgone conclusion after Normandy, and Kursk. Strategic initiative was lost to Germany, their attempt at the Bulge to regain it was opposed by every sane commander left in the Heer. In 1944 the Soviet Military machine was vastly larger than any other and its armies were already entrenching themselves into Eastern Europe. In 1945 they swept through Northern China in Operation August Storm and began setting up radical regimes one of which still haunts us today.

If we look earlier Stalin was executing purges, persecuting every religion, and forcibly deporting minority groups to Siberia in states out side of Russia prior to 1939. In the Soviet occupation, prior to the USSR joining the Allies, included such states as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and the Ukraine. While these states may not exist for you they were part of the world and their security was compromised. So in effect Stalin was already threatening world security, but we just did not care enough about such places. In China Stalin was supporting a Communist Insurgency under Mao Zedong and further destabilizing China. He was building spy rings across the globe, the Cambridge Five were recruited in the 1930s. In 1930 the Stalin was supporting extremist groups against their erstwhile coalition allies of the Spanish Republic. Stalin was committing terrorism abroad as he sent hitmen across the globe to kill critics like Trotsky in territories where he had no sovereignty.

But wait, I can already hear you say, those events happened before 1939 they are completely out of context, well then I suggest you look up the History of Poland and Finland. For you see Stalin waged two wars before joining the Allies. In Poland Stalin invaded his neighbor in League with Hitler. Soon after overrunning the Poles Stalin massacred those who posed a threat to Soviet Hegemony which included the usual gamut of the religious leaders, members of political parties, any one associated with the Polish Army, and any one who dared to speak up. In Finland he tried to make them a satellite state and annex more territory. Again this was during WWII so you see Stalin was a threat to global peace and stability. It’s just that people like you never heard or care about such places, Stalin was a threat, he was just adroit enough to threaten the places no one cared about. Back then all those places like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Finland, Poland, and the Ukraine, were states no one really cared to do anything about. They were back then, what Africa is now. Shit happens, but we never talk of such things as often as other topics, nor do we really care enough to do much about it.

Also you do not need a hydrogen bomb to become a nuclear power.As you said the Soviets detonated a bomb in 1949 and since then Stalin did have a nuclear arsenal, a modest one, but he had one nonetheless to qualify as a nuclear power. India and Pakistan have only announced that they have fission bombs, but are considered nuclear powers despite the fact that the US and Russia hold 96% of all nuclear weapons.

@Crusader

Look at this point arguing any more about Lulu is like arguing about religion it’s pointless.

LOL My question isn’t about Lulu though. It’s about Cornelia!! Stop ducking me!! :p

Also you have already been using CAPS LOCK long enough, I know cruise control for cool.

I use capslock for emphasis

Just because FDR was President does not mean that he was the victor at Midway.

It does mean that FDR was the victor of the War though as, ultimately, it is the leader who is held accountable for winning or losing.

You fail to understand that Hitler was able to do what he did because the German military was world class, the Wehrmacht was the harbinger of modern warfare.

Again, context. You fail to understand that before Hitler’s rise to power Germany was a shell of its former self. After losing WWI and being subjected to insurmountable reparations, Germany was subject to abject poverty. It was Hitler who rebuilt Germany into a formidable fighting force.

Without Hitler, Germany would not have had the infrastructure to become a world-class military threat. It was Hitler who was able to mobilize the Germans and give them a sense of patriotism after the Germans lost WWI.

If Hitler had only the Italian Army he would not have conquered much at all. Hitler had the will to use a world class military for conquest. He was ambitious and he did surround himself with reliable cronies and sack any one who was a threat to him regardless of their expertise.

LOL Doesn’t that mean that he was intelligent? I mean sacking threats and surrounding yourself with loyal allies doesn’t seem “stupid” to me at all. Does that sound stupid to you?

Your definition of context is funny and strange the events I mentioned all involved Stalin, but sure… In 1944 Stalin was a biggest threat to global security because the German defeat was a forgone conclusion after Normandy, and Kursk.

How was the USSR a Global Threat in 1944? You mentioned that Stalin was a greater threat because they had a nuclear arsenal. He didn’t. They only tested their first atomic bomb in 1949. So how are you determining that Stalin was the bigger threat? LOL

In 1944 the Soviet Military machine was vastly larger than any other and its armies were already entrenching themselves into Eastern Europe. In 1945 they swept through Northern China in Operation August Storm and began setting up radical regimes one of which still haunts us today.

From 1945 to 1948, the size of the Soviet Armed Forces drastically declined from 11.3 Million to 2.8 Million.

Is the size of a land army the sole determinate of a country’s threat to the world? If that’s so, why isn’t China considered the biggest threat to world security? They currently have the largest standing army on the world.

Your logic doesn’t pass muster. At the time, the USSR was still allied with the US and the UK. The Cold War didn’t even start until 1947. So to say that Stalin was a bigger threat in 1944 and 1945 is contradictory.

So in effect Stalin was already threatening world security, but we just did not care enough about such places.

We did not care about such places because they had no strategic value. Losing those countries didn’t mean a significant risk to the rest of the world. And compared to Hitler, Stalin was much less of a threat, as Hitler was attacking and conquering industrialized nations with significant value.

Attacking third-world countries that have no economic, political or military influence on the rest of the world does not make you a World Security Threat. It’s when you start attacking countries that can have an economic, military, or political effect on the REST of the world, that it becomes a threat to world security.

As you can see, the loss of those 3rd World Countries had no impact on the World. So how does that make it a “World Threat”? Is it a threat to those 3rd world countries if they are attacked? Yes. Is it a threat to the rest of the world? No.

In China Stalin was supporting a Communist Insurgency under Mao Zedong and further destabilizing China. He was building spy rings across the globe, the Cambridge Five were recruited in the 1930s. In 1930 the Stalin was supporting extremist groups against their erstwhile coalition allies of the Spanish Republic. Stalin was committing terrorism abroad as he sent hitmen across the globe to kill critics like Trotsky in territories where he had no sovereignty.

You fail to acknowledge that at the time Japan had already conquered and occupied Manchuria, deposed the current Chinese Emperor and installed a puppet figurehead to rule the rest of the country. China was already destabilized by the time the Russians started supporting Mao.

But wait, I can already hear you say, those events happened before 1939 they are completely out of context, well then I suggest you look up the History of Poland and Finland. For you see Stalin waged two wars before joining the Allies. In Poland Stalin invaded his neighbor in League with Hitler. Soon after overrunning the Poles Stalin massacred those who posed a threat to Soviet Hegemony which included the usual gamut of the religious leaders, members of political parties, any one associated with the Polish Army, and any one who dared to speak up. In Finland he tried to make them a satellite state and annex more territory. Again this was during WWII so you see Stalin was a threat to global peace and stability. It’s just that people like you never heard or care about such places, Stalin was a threat, he was just adroit enough to threaten the places no one cared about. Back then all those places like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Finland, Poland, and the Ukraine, were states no one really cared to do anything about. They were back then, what Africa is now. Shit happens, but we never talk of such things as often as other topics, nor do we really care enough to do much about it.

That still has no bearing on your claim that Stalin was a bigger threat than Hitler.

You said Stalin was a bigger threat because he had a nuclear arsenal. I already showed you that

1. Stalin would’ve never had any fissible nuclear material to use for his atomic bomb test had Germany not been defeated.
2. Stalin was dead by the time the Soviets acquired a usable nuclear weapon.

Are you changing your position on WHY Stalin was a threat?

Also you do not need a hydrogen bomb to become a nuclear power.

You said he had a nuclear arsenal. There’s no evidence to support that. The Soviet Atomic Bomb Project didn’t even start its first test in 1949. The program was still in its testing phase. They did not obtain a usable weapon until after Stalin had already died.

As I mentioned before, the Soviets did not discover domestic sources of Uranium until much later. All of the uranium obtained for their first test were taking from Germany’s Atomic Bomb Project.

So if you compare Hitler(who had uranium and an atomic bomb research program) and Stalin (who had no sources of uranium and an atomic bomb project), Hitler was the bigger threat.

Stalin essentially had a gun with no bullets. It wasn’t until after the Germans were defeated that Stalin stole Germany’s bullets.

As you said the Soviets detonated a bomb in 1949 and since then Stalin did have a nuclear arsenal, a modest one, but he had one nonetheless to qualify as a nuclear power. India and Pakistan have only announced that they have fission bombs, but are considered nuclear powers despite the fact that the US and Russia hold 96% of all nuclear weapons.

See above.

The issue here isn’t whether or not Stalin was a threat, the Truman Doctrine already confirmed that, it’s whether Stalin was a greater threat to World Security than Hitler.

He was not.

Now, if you want to argue that after the fall of Hitler, the Soviet Union became a significant threat to world security, that might be debateable. But to claim that the USSR under the rule of Stalin was a greater threat to World Security than Germany under the rule of Hitler is just plain false.

Stalin only lived 8 years more than Hitler. He would’nt have acquired Uranium if Hitler didn’t lose. He didn’t even test a nuclear bomb until 1949 (4 years before dying). The first hydrogen bomb test didn’t even occur until after he died. To say that Stalin had a nuclear arsenal (a mass of weapons) when only 1 nuclear bomb test had been conducted during the remainder of Stalin’s lifetime is just incorrect.

The closest the Soviets became to becoming a comparable threat to World Security was in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis and that was nearly 10 years after Stalin had already died.

@Crusader

Uranium alone is not sufficient for a bomb, a dirty bomb [perhaps but you need a cyclotron to make a fission bomb.

My point was that, Russia did not even have Uranium to conduct a nuclear weapons test until they stole Germany’s supply after the war.

You specifically said, Stalin was a bigger threat than Hitler because Russia had a nuclear arsenal. I already gave you sufficient historical evidence to prove that Russia did not have anything close to an “arsenal” within Stalin’s lifetime.

You logic is odd so it’s okay to overrun a good number of Third World countries and not be a threat to global stability? You sir have the callousness I cannot begin to describe. This debate is pointless since you care about some places but not about others. I have made my statements and stand by them for you Hitler is the ultimate big bad you have no idea and never will understand what Stalin really was.

You have not provided sufficient evidence to prove why Stalin was a bigger threat than Hitler. Nor have you clearly expressed what your criterion or basis for what that determination was.

Hitler declared War on 4 out of 6 habitable continents (Europe, North America, Asia and Africa). That’s nearly 2/3rds of the world’s population. Unless you can come up with a convincing argument of how Stalin posed a GREATER threat to that same 2/3rds of the World (between 1947 and 1953) you’re fighting a losing battle.

The USSR, as I’ve said before, only became a comparable threat to Germany AFTER Stalin had passed away.

Present evidence to the contrary or yield your statement of position.

And yes, overrunning a country (or multiple countries) which has/have no impact on the rest of the world’s economic, military or political resources does not constitute a threat to world security. A threat to the world means a, uh threat to the entire world, not just a subset or specific region of the world.

You’ve yet to make the argument on how Stalin was a threat to the ENTIRE world as Hitler was. Not just tiny portions of it.

The loss of Eastern Europe was keenly felt just because you have never met any one who had to flee their home land does not mean that they were unimportant and had no bearing on the rest of the world.

Keenly felt by who? Clearly it wasn’t too keenly felt, as the rest of the allied powers were too concerned with rebuilding and reconstruction in the aftermath of WWII to openly oppose Stalin.

And this is where we come back to my old friend Context. The British were economically and militarily devastated upon the conclusion of WWII and couldn’t even hold onto their own colonies. They were certainly not concerned with the fate of a few satellite countries which held no strategic value or usable resources.

As morally opposed as you may be to the “weaker” countries being dominated by a stronger country, this does not mean that the stronger country constitutes a significant threat to the rest of the world.

If that was the case, we’d be attacking China for holding Tibet hostage and trying to reclaim Taiwan as part of their territory.

The Soviet demobilization was uncharacteristically fast, and the most important reason why Stalin wanted to reduce the size of the Red Army was that well all those formerly scarred and oppressed people now all had guns, tanks, and airplanes. Stalin never did trust the Red Army and as soon ans they were no longer needed disarmed them. Let’s not forget that Zhukov was viewed by Stalin as a threat and soon had Marshall Victory exiled to some remote post. You see it was a move more to protect Stalin form a mass mutiny than anything else.

That still doesn’t address my point. You specifically said that Stalin had posed a “great threat to world security” because of the size of his army.

I replied by showing you the size of his army had decreased drastically within a 3 year span. Now, if you’re turning around and saying “Stalin reduced his army because he was afraid of a big army he couldn’t control” how does that support your EARLIER statement that he was a larger threat than Hitler because of his army?

It’s a self-defeating point.

I was merely demonstrating that Stalin was more than just a single threat, but that no longer matters because you have declared it out of context because those countries do not matter. So long as you dismiss everything I have to say as out of context the point is moot.

I’ve already addressed each and every one of your contentions of the magnitude of Stalin’s threat. Most of which you have ignored, or gone on tangents about.

You haven’t even responded as to why CHINA which meets all of your previous criterion of (Largest Army in the World, Nuclear Arsenal, Communist) isn’t considered a threat to the world’s security?

Again, you specifically said “Stalin was a threat because he had a nuclear arsenal and he had the world’s largest army”.

Both points were proven false and you continue to fail to prove HOW Stalin is considered a larger threat to World Security than Hitler was (Let me again remind you that Stalin died in 1953, right after the conclusion of the Korean War in which the USSR halted their advance at the 38th parallel per their post-war agreement with the Americans).

Now, I can’t for the live of me find any historian, alive or dead, who would agree with you that Stalin was much more of a threat than Hitler.

If you’re going to make that claim, you’re going to have to back it up. History appears to agree with me, thus far.

This is pointless you obliviously can turn a blind eye to Stalin like you can with Lulu.

It’s not about “turning a blind eye”. It’s about recognizing which is the greater threat. Just like the Allied Powers recognized Hitler was a greater threat than Stalin (Which is why even though he killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS during his Purge, no Allied Power EVER EVER EVER EVER opposed him).

I’m not saying Stalin wasn’t a threat. I’m saying, Hitler was the larger threat which needed to be dealt with. Which is why the US and UK allied with Stalin, against Hitler.

Similarly how Charles vi Britannia is the larger threat than Lelouch, which is why all of his former enemies (Rolo, Orange-kun, Viletta, and soon to be your beloved Cornelia-hime) are joining Lelouch in his crusade to end Charles’ tyranny.

Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, you have lost this point.

Congratulations you sir win an internet.

This was evident before we engaged in this debate

Now I suggest you read up on your history since you don’t seem to have mastery of the subject matter in the slightest.

I never claimed to have a “mastery” on history. I merely provided evidence to counter your claims on how Stalin was a larger threat than Hitler.

You’ve yet to produce one sound logical argument to refute that which I have previously provided to you.

Your lack of knowledge when it comes to the USSR and Stalin.

This is rather funny

Also please do read up on how an atom bomb is made for good measure.

LOL I know it can’t be made without fissible material and that Stalin did not have any domestic sources of fissible material. That is more than enough knowledge to counter your baseless claims of a “nuclear arsenal”.

You focus merely on the political history and have no idea how many talented actors there were that made Germany powerful.

No, I focus on military history also but the argument here isn’t “what made Germany powerful”. The argument here is “Why Stalin is more of a threat than Hitler”.

Remember my earlier comment about unrelated tangents? This is a prime example of you going away from the main topic into something completely irrelevant to your argument.

Hitler you see is not the evil genius you make him out to be.

Where did I say he was an “evil genius”? I said he was intelligent. I didn’t say he was a German Stephen Hawking or anything close to that. YOU’RE the one who called him “stupid” because he wasn’t militarily competent. There’s more to intelligence than military aptitude.

I am utterly aghast at how you basically said that none of those countries mattered. I am through with this farce.

Prove how the loss of any of those countries significantly affected the rest of the world.

I dare you to.

@Crusader

Look your remark about China was a tangent I stayed within what Stalin was doing.

It’s not a tangent. China is VERY similar to the criterion you listed for Stalinist Russia. It has all the same elements you already defined for why you considered Stalinist Russia a threat, and yet no one in the world considers China to be a threat to world security. Why is that?

In the 1960s China was supporting revolts in Africa, that helped make that continent what it is today, a place of nearly endless conflict. Nevertheless I guess these activities don’t really count since they do not affect the required 2/3s of the world to be considered a threat to the world.

These activities don’t count because NO ONE CONSIDERS CHINA TO BE A THREAT TO WORLD SECURITY.

I defy you to provide one example, in the form of a UN Declaration, or other comparable document which illustrates how China is a threat to international security.

The examples you listed, while admirable, still do not address the central issue of “If China shares the same ideological, military and technological capability of Stalinist Russia, why are they then not considered a threat to world security by your previously established criterion?”.

You’re going outside the bounds of the argument.

As for the loss of Eastern Europe the influx of people who left there did contribute a cultural gain for the countries which gave them refuge. Israel did get a good number of Eastern European Jews which added significantly to their man power so that they could better fight off their Arab neighbors. Many former Soviet satellite states still remember the Soviet occupation and are at times at odds with Russia. Many of those states ave joined or are trying to join NATO and that has caused a few problems with Russia as well.

This does nothing to illustrate how within the specified time frame (1947 – 1953) , how the loss of these countries affected the WORLD. The only argument you might possibly have is that it affected the population of Israel.

But that still doesn’t have a significant impact on the rest of the world. These examples that you’re citing have a limited REGIONAL impact, not a GLOBAL one.

Hitler declared war on most of the world by going against the British Empire and the USSR. However he never did have any troops in North America, thus his actual threat to North America was minimal.

Germany might not have been a large threat to the US but there were still a threat, nonetheless.
Hitler was also in conflict with the greatest colonial power so by declaring war on two regimes Hitler was technically at war with most of the world even if he never posed a significant threat to places like Australia. I guess you want to say that a declaration of war alone is sufficient threat, fair enough, but from my view a purely military view Hitler was not a threat to 2/3s of the world.

That’s fair enough. I can agree that Hitler may not have had the military infrastructure to PERSONALLY attack 2/3rds of the world, but through his alliances with Japan and Italy, he certainly did pose a significant threat to most of the world’s populated areas.

Hitler never needed to declare war on the US his entire General Staff thought that he was nuts, but Hitler did need to show Japan that it was a good ally and did so in the vain hope that the Japanese would attack the Soviet Union. After being slapped silly by Zhukov in Mongolia scant years before the Japanese Army was unwilling to go to war. Up until the the US had no reason to declare war on Germany and had Hitler done nothing after Pearl Harbor the US would have been at war with Japan only.

FDR was supporting the UK by supplying them with weapons. Everybody and their grandmother knows FDR was itching to get involved in WWII. What prevented him from getting involved sooner was the isolationist view that Congress had at the time. That and the overwhelming disapproval the public had for going to war.
For FDR, Pearl Harbor was like a gift from god because it finally gave him an excuse to actively participate in the war.

For further evidence, you need only look at Roosevelt’s “Arsenal of Democracy” radio transmissions delivered on December 29, 1940. A full year before the Pearl Harbor incident. There’s also Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech delivered on Jan of 1941.

Roosevelt was already indirectly involved in the War by providing the Allied Powers with “all aid short of war”. See: Churchill’s book “The Grand Alliance” written in 1977 for further proof.

It was Hitler’s declaration of war that brought the US in.

This is patently false as I’ve already described above.

Britain, and the US only became Allies of the Soviets after the invasion which made them Allies of Convenience.

That doesn’t negate the fact that Britain and the US saw Hitler as a greater threat than Hitler was.

Declaring war on the US and the USSR before he finished his business with the British was not a smart move by and stretch of the imagination, hence he was “stupid” for doing so.

He really had no choice but to declare war on the US. What was the alternative? Allow Japan to lose the war against the US and thus deprive him of a foothold in the Pacific? Hitler tried his best to avoid open-war against the Americans until the Japanese went and jumped the gun. The plan was initially to secure Europe and ally with Russia to dominate the Western Hemisphere. Russia was noncommittal to the Germans and grew increasingly nervous over the Germans constant incursions into Eastern Europe.

He may have done something militarily stupid, but that by no means makes him a stupid person. It makes him a politican, not a military tactician.

Hitler also had a propensity to reject everything remotely Jewish hence all the people who could have helped him build a atom bomb had already left because they were Jewish leaving him with a small remnant of physicists who were reluctant to help him build a bomb. Again by kicking out some seriously talented physicists because of they were Jews, does not constitute “intelligence.” Hitler also had a fondness for big huge and impractical weapons such as the Ratte and Maus super heavy tanks, only Albert Speer was able to stop such wasteful projects from making the situation on the front any worse than it already was. Again building super heavy tanks that the Heer never asked for was not very “intelligent.”

The reason the atomic bomb was never built wasn’t because of a lack of scientists. It was because it was determined (Wrongly) that the nuclear energy project would not make a “decisive contribution to ending the war effort” in the near-term and the army relinquished control of the program in 1942.

The Western Allies were wary of Stalin all the governments in exile that held de jure sovereignty east of the Rhine were sidelined once it because clear that if the US and Britain were to win the war thrust upon them they would have to keep the USSR on their side. Sikorski leader of the Poles in exile was not liked by Stalin thus relations between the two remained soured. The West looked the other way when the Soviets allowed the Home Army to be slaughtered. We never really trusted Stalin, but necessity dictated that we keep him as our erstwhile ally, and they never really trusted us. The Soviets refused to be a team player and do anything about Japan until we gave them concessions at the expense of Nationalist China. We had a common cause but they were a threat once it became clear in 1944 what kind of post war world Stalin was planning. The US and the UK basically sold out the Eastern European Governments in Exile at the end of the war. At the time it was decide that conflict with the Soviet Union was untenable, and after 1944 we were already leering at one another suspiciously.

This makes sense ^^

But you’re still not explaining how you came to the conclusion that Stalin was a greater threat than Hitler =P

I won’t comment on your hierarchy of worthwhile countries but honestly you are sounding kind of arrogant and somewhat racist declaring them as people and nations that have no significance.

I’m not saying they have “no significance”. What I have said is that they do not hold any strategic value. That their existence or political status does not have a significant impact on the rest of the world.

If you can provide evidence to how the world is dependent on their existence or safety for international security, I’ll be happy to recant my prior determination.

Fair enough I suppose if all that matters to you are certain nations and not others then I guess the USSR was never a threat to the part of the world you care about. I concede Stalin was never a threat to the part of the world you deem important.

Stalin was never a threat to the world, because the -newly created- United Nations (remember that new international government authority that’s supposed to mediate conflicts between nations?) did not consider them a threat to the world.

What you illustrated, with your examples, was that Stalin was a threat to parts of the world. Not the entire world, or even the majority of the world but small pockets of barely recognized regions and countries (MIND YOU NOW, it’s not ME that barely recognizes them but the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY as a whole). Considering that he doesn’t pass that critical test, it’s fairly impossible to compare him to Hitler in terms of how much of a threat he posed to international security.

What WAS considered a threat was the spread of Communism as a political ideology, not Stalin in specific. Stalin was just the public face of Communism (and only up until 1953, which doesn’t even really cover the “Red Scare” of McCarthyism that followed after Stalin’s death).

The issue here was never whether Stalin was a threat, but whether he could be considered a GREATER threat to International Security than Hitler did.

You provided no basis to support that determination.

Well sorry for wasting your time.

It wasn’t a waste for me. I enjoyed myself. It was rather entertaining. I’m sure Calawain enjoys the traffic this debate has generated to his Geass post

I can see why you think Stalin IS a threat, but you were unable to articulate WHAT made Stalin a greater international threat than Hitler. Hitler, by all accounts, is considered one of the greatest threats in all of History. It’s a tall order to top the most reviled human being in all of history.

@Crusader

So many of your paragraphs start with “Look,” haha.

@Halcyon
Oh mercy! Mercy! I give up I can’t argue with your over emphasis on the UN and your desire for an international a memo saying Stalin was a threat. Oh yeah UN “resolution preferred,” that’s great. Well may your UN bring the peace and stability you desire for the world that matters for many years.

Yes Hitler mad alliances therefore he must have been pulling the strings…just like how Churchill was pulling FDR’s and Uncle Joes’s. Honestly man the Axis was about as hollow an alliance as you can get Germany and Japan never really did much for each other and the Italians were the weakest link in the chain having defected in 1943. As if Hitler was giving orders to the Japanese and Italians, ah… You sir have made my day, memos and all.

Here’s your memo.

Kallen isnt Stupid. She can put two and two together
If you can recall. Kallen misses so much school due to her “illness”
But she still has the top grades of the class. And in battle she can make clear decissions when Zero Cannot.