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

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
The second expansion is to be titled Civ 4: Underlings, and Germany will be represented by Col. Klink (but you didn't hear that from me... ).

[LzPrst]

wow. amazing thread...

Just to add a few facts.

Hitler was elected chancellor of germany in 1933 and ran it till he blew his brains out in 1945.

Stalin took over the Soviet Union in the mid 1920's and ruled until he died in 1956.

Stalin massacred some 30 million in his projects to industrialize the soviet union (pop-rush anyone?) But he did industrialize the soviet union. (I leave the moral debasement to someone else).

Hitler killed 5-6 million jews in concentration camps and other means. He ALSO killed 5-6 million other people, including gypsies, homosexuals, handicapped people and quite a few oppositionals. The jews were not the only victims of the Nazi's, which strangely, noone has mentioned here. (Check out Norman Finkelstein's works for a possible reason why).

In addition Hitler started a war against Poland which led to WWII. If you count the number of casualties inflicted by the german military AND the results of those actions, starvations, refugees etc Hitler is responsible for a similar number, noone has mentioned that. I guess casualties caused by war are ok? Cant make an omelette without breaking a few henhouses eh?
He also improved Germany's infrastructure (autobahn for example) and helped recover the German economy which was in tatters after WWI.

Regardless, the leaders in civ4, Catherine, Mao, Alexander, Isabella, Elizabeth, Napoleon, Qin Shi (i forget how its spelled), and just about everyone else are all quite evil by our standards. the only leader in the game that lives up to modern day ideals is Gandhi.

Hitler as a leader? I'd rather not have him. Its just how I feel. Stalin? He was in civ1... after you're responsible for more than a million deaths then numbers become statistics and frankly they're all way beyond measure when it comes to being bad. But many of the worlds leaders throughout history HAVE been vile wicked maniacs.

The main reason for NOT having Hitler in the game is because he was a proponent for something that is still a threat to modern day societies. Anti-semitism, racism and religious intolerance in organized form is bad. Giving Hitler the "honor" of being a leader in civ is not only an affront to his victims, it is in a way declaring him "acceptable". In 50 years, maybe noone will bat an eyelid for having Hitler in a game. But there might be protests if Bush or Saddam was given a role.

[LordShiva]

LzPrst

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by LzPrst
The main reason for NOT having Hitler in the game is because he was a proponent for something that is still a threat to modern day societies. Anti-semitism, racism and religious intolerance in organized form is bad. Giving Hitler the "honor" of being a leader in civ is not only an affront to his victims, it is in a way declaring him "acceptable". In 50 years, maybe noone will bat an eyelid for having Hitler in a game. But there might be protests if Bush or Saddam was given a role.

By this reasoning, I'd have to say CIV could be responsible for the Iraq war- since Napoleon has been "honored" with a presence in the game, Bush's cabinet has probably used that to conclude that bringing the US's 'enlightened' ideals to the Middle East at the point of a gun would be an ok thing to do...

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by player1
It's not "kill count" that matters. But that Hitler plan was to eradicate one ethic group (Hebrews) from the face of the earth using any means necessary.



That can't compare to failed communist reforms, that led to death of many by Stalin, even if led to more death people overall (nor starvation could compare to a "slaughter" which Nazi gas chambers really were).

So killing millions based on ethnicity is somehow worse than killing millions based on class? Strange

[Son of David]

Originally posted by LzPrst

The main reason for NOT having Hitler in the game is because he was a proponent for something that is still a threat to modern day societies. Anti-semitism, racism and religious intolerance in organized form is bad. Giving Hitler the "honor" of being a leader in civ is not only an affront to his victims, it is in a way declaring him "acceptable". In 50 years, maybe noone will bat an eyelid for having Hitler in a game. But there might be protests if Bush or Saddam was given a role.

Oh now, come on.

Hitler was a playable character in the official WWII scenario in Civilization II.

How many Jews died as a result of that scenario?

If you're looking for something to 'blame' why not try blaming the millions of Muslims in Europe who daily preach hatred of their Christian and Jewish 'heathen' hosts?

Please switch off your teevee and start thinking for yourself!

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Son of David
Oh now, come on.

Hitler was a playable character in the official WWII scenario in Civilization II.

How many Jews died as a result of that scenario?

If you're looking for something to 'blame' why not try blaming the millions of Muslims in Europe who daily preach hatred of their Christian and Jewish 'heathen' hosts?

Please switch off your teevee and start thinking for yourself!

You're missing the point...

[Forwarn45]

The main reason for NOT having Hitler in the game is because he was a proponent for something that is still a threat to modern day societies. Anti-semitism, racism and religious intolerance in organized form is bad. Giving Hitler the "honor" of being a leader in civ is not only an affront to his victims, it is in a way declaring him "acceptable". In 50 years, maybe noone will bat an eyelid for having Hitler in a game. But there might be protests if Bush or Saddam was given a role.

Great response lzprst - it was hard not to quote the whole thing. While I do not personally find it objectionable to include Hitler, I think you have best summarized why it is reasonable to do so. I agree that motives and objectives do matter - not just results - even if the results are equally horrific.

[Alexander I]

This has been very interesting, but noone has confronted the issue of Stalin also being a proponent of Anti-Semitism.

Also, why did the allies not declare war on Stalin when he invaded Poland with Hitler? They split the country; Russia still has its half of Poland.

[Alexander I]

Just watched a documentary comparing Hitler and Stalin -- they were very similar.

[Grenouille]

Originally posted by Alexander01
This has been very interesting, but noone has confronted the issue of Stalin also being a proponent of Anti-Semitism.

Also, why did the allies not declare war on Stalin when he invaded Poland with Hitler? They split the country; Russia still has its half of Poland.

The eastern parts of pre-war Poland, that have been annexed by the USSR, are nowadays part of Ukraine and Belorussia today, not part of Russia.

The allies probarly didn´t declare war on Stalin because they were already fully stretched fighting Germany, and had hopes that the USSR might one day join them in the fight against Hitler.

[LzPrst]

@ Son of David.

First I would ask that you dont make assumptions about my access to information nor my ability to think for myself.

The point I was trying to make is that Hitler shouldn't be made "house-clean" by giving him the place as leader of the germans in this game.

If my previous argument doesnt work, see it in relation to this; throughout german history, if you were to choose two leaders who should represent Germanys place in the world, would you consider Hitler one of them? Despite the many flaws of the other leaders most of them had some endresult positive influence on their nations. Hitler had very little, if any.

Now the same could be said about Napoleon, but the ideas of the french revolution are among the basis of our modern societies. Napoleons wars contributed to spreading these ideas and spurred several new ones resulting in considerable development in Europe. Hitler's ideas are nothing but superstitious and irrational hatred. They should not be given any leniency or acceptance as they have no positive influence or value to humanity.

Also, intelligent people everywhere have come to realize that you cannot spread ideas by the use of force. Unfortunately the Bush administration is not a part of that category. Learning from history is one of the most important responsibilities of people in the present, obviously Bush hasnt learned that force is an ineffective way of spreading ideas. Nazis still consider use of force a legitimate, if not one of the most important aspects of their ideology. They dont deserve to have their founder accepted in a game.

In the WW2 scenario having Hitler as leader is only historical. Having him represent the German people throughout 6000 years of history in a mainstream game is IMO poor judgement and bad taste.

And finally, if anyone should watch less TV it is you. Most muslims are tolerant reasonable people who only want to live life in peace, the same as the rest of us. Those spreading anti-jewish or anti-christian ideas are a minority. It is true that muslims believe that their religion is the answer to how to live ones life for all people and therefore try to spread it, but so do most religions.

I know several muslims, not one of them has ever spoken negatively agaisnt christians or jews in a general manner. If anyone is spreading hatred of religious groups its TV focusing only on the extremes of islamic society. I'm quite sure if you spent a few weeks watching fringe elements of western society portrayed as the norm you'd be quite afraid of western society as well. Maybe you should take your own advice and watch the dummy box a little less yourself.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Alexander01
This has been very interesting, but noone has confronted the issue of Stalin also being a proponent of Anti-Semitism.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Alexander01
This has been very interesting, but noone has confronted the issue of Stalin also being a proponent of Anti-Semitism.

Also, why did the allies not declare war on Stalin when he invaded Poland with Hitler? They split the country; Russia still has its half of Poland...

Just watched a documentary comparing Hitler and Stalin -- they were very similar.

My recollection is that both England and France, who originally declared war (finally, after much appeasement) over Poland, had faint hope even as late as 1939 of reconstituting the alliance of World War I and drawing Stalin in. This of course was eventually realized, but only after the USSR was attacked in 1941 by the same Nazis. There was, even as late as '39, a widespread sense of "exhaustion" in Britain and France over the cost of the First World War and efforts to "invade" Russia just after 1917, i.e. the Murmansk operation, had little effect on the Russian Civil War at the time. USSR and Poland fought a border war in 1921, during said civil war and western intervention proved naught to prevent this. There were pro-communist sympathizers, even this late, in academia and in the legislatures of Britain and France confusing the issue also, with continued sympathy for "the people's revolution."

Stalin remembered western intervention in the civil war and wanted little to do with them, even while acknowledging the threat of resurgent Germany in the Thirties. Similarity in foreign and domestic policy between his "hard left" regime and Hitler's "hard right" was probably on his mind also, while the western democracies were merely "decadent" and weak in comparison. Stalin coveted the Baltic States and Finland, part of Manchuria and part of Romania and would act on all these desires in the period 1939-41, so definitely he had more commonality of purpose with the Germans than the West in that area. Social control through his NKVD was similar to German social control being exercised through the Gestapo and other SS enterprises; and yes, anti-semitism was a theme of both regimes. Birds of a feather, will flock together, at least for a time.

Alan Bullock, an English historian who wrote a definitive biography of Hitler in the 1960's, came back in 1993 and wrote "Hitler and Stalin." Alternating chapters compare and contrast both men from youth until their respective demises. The television documentary mentioned above no doubt borrows in some manner from this definitive work, which makes good reading, I read it just after it came out; it is however, quite lengthy.

I think Stalin's anti-semitism just gets buried in the monstrosity of his total crimes; the person who said casualties of over a million tend to just blur into abstractions got it right. Jews were not obliterated in the Soviet Union, despite the official hostility, unlike in Germany and many of their occupied countries; they continued to emigrate right on through the 1980's, though often, especially under Stalin's successor Brezhnev, under horrid official discrimination and disapproval.

[Forwarn45]

I think Stalin's anti-semitism just gets buried in the monstrosity of his total crimes; the person who said casualties of over a million tend to just blur into abstractions got it right.

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin

Forgive me if someone has already pointed this out. But I found it ironic.