Should Stalin and/or Hitler be a leader in Civ?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by swat-spas2

Bismarck and Frederick to my mind are still ahead of Hitler in German greatness, simply because they forged a nation-state from disseperate city-states and then vaulted it into a world power very quickly (similar to what Alexander did).

Yes, Bismarck and Frederick were better leaders. But I think (unfortunately) that Hitler is the most famous German leader.

Originally posted by swat-spas2
Go ask the Germans who they would rather see as the leaderhead in game.

Well, I'm a German, and I'm ashamed of what Hitler did both to my country and to millions of innocent people. i don't think he should be overlooked or forgotten, though.

If it came down to a choice of just one leader for Germany, i'd pick Bismarck, but Frederick the Great is good too. I'd love to see Frederick Barbarossa! Somehow, though Hitler just keeps coming back. I'd really prefer at least that a WWII scenario have him as well as Churchill, FDR and Stalin.

[Zoid]

The funny thing is that noone AFAIK is demanding Hitler as the one (or one of two) leaders in the actual game, but only in a WW2 scenario. That is only in a historical context... Hitler is by no means Germanys greatest leader, only the most infamous...

[armchairknight]

Yeah, Zoid, but in a couple of centuries I think he'll still be infamous. Whereas today's leaders in any nation of your choice might just be a footnote in some dry history text.

[armchairknight]

To me, FDR and Churchill seem defined largely on their performances in WWII. FDR did spend lots of time in the Oval Office and struggle through the Great Depression, but WWII helped us out of the Depression. Didn't it? Churchill was around a long time, but IIRC his successes were in WWII. Before that, not so much and didn't he lose power shortly after the war? So I'm in solid agreement with Alexander 01. Hitler should be included. If for no other reason than without him, it seems less likely, to me at least, that a few of these other leaders would even make it into the game.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by armchairknight
Yeah, Zoid, but in a couple of centuries I think he'll still be infamous. Whereas today's leaders in any nation of your choice might just be a footnote in some dry history text.

Isn´t that exactly what we are discussing here? The elevation of Hitler as the epitome of evil when other leaders are just as evil? I´ve tried to shed some light on why he will be infamous...

But my previous post was more a rebuttal to Alexander01´s post above where he seems to argue against the inclusion of Hitler as the leader of the germans in the ordinary Civ game...

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Zoid


Isn´t that exactly what we are discussing here? The elevation of Hitler as the epitome of evil when other leaders are just as evil? I´ve tried to shed some light on why he will be infamous...

But my previous post was more a rebuttal to Alexander01´s post above where he seems to argue against the inclusion of Hitler as the leader of the germans in the ordinary Civ game...

I was only arguing against having Hitler as the only German leader in an ordinary civ game. It would not be fair to have him the only choice (in a hypothetical situation). I think he should be included. Just not first.

[Zoid]

OK, I thought the discussion was about a possible WW2 scenario.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Zoid
OK, I thought the discussion was about a possible WW2 scenario.

Sorry for the mixup. I was talking about a WWII scenario as well, saying that Hitler is absolutely essential for WWII. He started the war, after all, though there were other causes beyond him.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Rommel2D

This is where I'm puzzled by the uproar over the subject, especially among those familliar with CIV. Leaders are mostly window dressing in the game. The only representation of a given leader in evidence when played by a human is the image shown on another player's diplomatic screen in multi-player games. The important characteristics to actual gameplay are the leader traits that are extremely abstracted and shared with many other leaders.

I guess there are some who view Civ as their religion and the leaders represented in it akin to a godhead, but this is a problem in itself that won't be addressed by leaving one or two controversial figures out...

I never see myself as that leader. I play as Elizabeth the most. And I don't see myself as a woman.

[Dis]

Originally posted by johnmcd


He should be humanised though, he was human, fairly unremarkable in most ways. There is very little to mark him apart from any other ambitious man except what he ended up doing.

As soon as we say we musn't understand him as a human we start losing the ability to learn from history.

I don't believe any of that has anything to do with whether he should be in Civ though.

I agree. It's wrong to demonize people like that. We must all remain vigilant, because any human (Bush maybe ) is capable of such actions.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Alexander01


Sorry for the mixup. I was talking about a WWII scenario as well, saying that Hitler is absolutely essential for WWII. He started the war, after all, though there were other causes beyond him.

Another funny thing is that I reacted instinctively negative about Hitler being one of the leaders in an ordinary Civ game, it just didn´t feel right. Quite a strange reaction considering I´ve argued in this very thread that Hitler wasn´t worse than Stalin or Mao and I haven´t had any problems playing them in the past...

[Generaldoktor]

I just continue to think it will be taken outside the narrow context of a "historical" game, because of the nature of the "leaderheads," being somewhat "humanizing," which the general public isn't ready for.

I was a board game player before I got into Civ, played "Axis & Allies," all the Avalon Hill stuff that frequently included SS units, even a giant GRD game on Russia that included what are apparently Einsatzgruppen as anti-partisan units. Right now, I have a computer version of a hexogonal board-type game by Matrix Games on my machine called, "Korsun Pocket." Many of the German troops in the Korsun Pocket, real-world, were Waffen SS; some of them, like the Belgian, Degrelle, escaped from the pocket only to face trial a few years later. I have no guilt about playing these nefarious game characters in a strict historical context and there has been little outcry against such games.

Civ is a "civilization" game, a mass-market (not limited interest) game; a game that is marketed to some extent as a learning tool to young people. It is also distributed, from what I can see here, in quite a few countries, including former Nazi victim countries and I'm not sure all the American board "wargames" were back in their heydey. I just see a potential here for a lot of trouble for the reputation of Firaxis AND the Civ community as a whole. if Hitler is included.

[Dis]

and obviously we shouldn't have Hitler making cutsie remarks in the diplomacy window. He'd be one of those leaders who make demeaning remarks to you. But that's the thing. Civ 4 is a light-hearted game. Not a serious war game or strategy game. I say leave Hitler out except for WW2 scenarios.

[Franklinnoble]

Yes, Hitler should be included. I see no reason why a computer game should be held to political correctness.

[Alexander I]

I know that Hitler won't be in the regular civ game. Nevertheless, I think it an interesting possibility that he could be included. I personally don't have a problem with including him, since we already have Stalin, Mao, Alexander, Napoleon, Genghis Khan and so on.

However, we as a society have programmed ourselves to automatically get angry whenever we even see Hitler's picture, and get offended when people talk about Nazis, yet we haven't done the same thing for Mao or Stalin.
I dislike the double standard -- it's inconsistent and I don't want to make myself a hypocrite.

I don't want to offend anyone, yet I know that someone is always offended. (I know some people who walked out of "O Brother, Where Art Thou" because the KKK were in it, even though the Klansmen were the bad guys and portrayed like ignorant, bloodthirsty, no-good hoodlums.)

Since Firaxis wishes to avoid the torrent of hatemail and death threats that would undoubtedly come with a Hitler leaderhead, I know they won't put him in.

Those of us who think he should be in should find a good animator to mod him in, if it's really that important to us.

P.S. My Avatar is currently Nebuchadnezzar, who was a bloodthirsty conquering tyrant. I just noticed this. Why is it that I'm not offended by his atrocities (Jerusalem-burning, etc.) but am offended by Hitler's?