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

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by LzPrst
and Stalin is not in civ4.

Respectfully, Stalin is in Civ4: Warlords Expansion, apparently due to popular demand.

[Charles_Bronson]

Originally posted by LzPrst
yes. jews are not the only people who have been treated badly throughout history. the roma/gypsies, the kurds, native americans, the latter who were in fact practically wiped out, noone talks about these people. the reason is that jews are better at making themselves heard.

and my main argument for not having hitler in is simply that we shouldnt give the b4st4rd any slack. he is in the history books. he doenst need to be in the game. and Stalin is not in civ4. he was in civ1 and hasnt been an option since. Mao is in teh game and so is Genghiz Khan. not nice people, I agree, but they represented "progress" for their nations and so does stalin. Hitler does not. in addition he is the proponent of an ideology based on superstition and hate. we dont need to give that ideology any acceptability.

Point taken, but I still keep my opinion.

[Grenouille]

You miss a major point when you want to compare the murder of other persecuted ethnic or religious groups to the murder of the jews by the Germans.

The persecution of the jews had a different quality.

Adolf Hitler and his willing executers ultimately wanted to kill every single jew on earth, without any limitation to the total annihilation of the jewish people.
The Germans of Hitlers Germany believed jews to be the ultimate enemy of mankind, and attributed everything evil in the world (or what they saw as evil) to the jews.

The jews were blamed for communism, capitalism, the world war, the french revolution, democracy, pacifism, "degeneration of the aryan race", cosmopolitism, antinationalism, and so on.

Hitler and the Germans regarded other races, disabled persons and homosexuals to be worthless, and there for did kill them, like the they killed the jews. But they did it with a different motivation, and with less devotion, than they did with the jews.

The Germans were ruthless against people they deemed inferior. Still, their extermination drive against the jewish people is unmatched by any other genocide they or others commited.

The singularity of Auschwitz can`t be put on the same level as Stalin`s, Mao`s or Kahn`s mass murders.

I`m shocked by a comment like "But the Roma, they are poor. Who cares?". It sounds like the stereotype of the rich jew. But the majority of jewish victims of the Shoah, especially those that came from Poland or the Soviet Union weren`t rich, but rather poor.

[Alexander I]

By the way, Hitler was Jewish.

[Charles_Bronson]

You cannot measure evil.

The funny thing about Hitler is that we somehow seem to believe that the world would never tolerate another one. This is, of course, dead wrong. Since Hitler, the world has tolerated dozens of Hitlers, all approximately as bad as the first, although none quite as successful.

Slobodan Milosevic was one of the bastards. If he had the power that Hitler had, probably the Holoucast would be much worse. (Biological and chemical weapons).

Kill ten persons is the same as killing thousands. Both are major crimes against humanity. Hitler is no more "evil" than Slobodan. Neither Saddam is more evil than Hitler.

Open any history book, and see how many lines of text
talk about the Holocaust. Now, search about the Gipsy in the book, and tell me: Why the jews deserves so much more attention than the gipsy? Because the Jews were much more influential in history. The gispy no, they are people who were nomads and poor throught all history. And the jews never were as poor as the gipsy, by the way. And take a closer look in your history book and look for Serra Leoa, and see if there are more entries than Bosnia war.

Just because the nazis killed jews in industrial way it doesn´t make ANY difference than killing Gipsies in old ways.

[Grenouille]

Originally posted by Alexander01
By the way, Hitler was Jewish.

No, he wasn`t.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Grenouille


No, he wasn`t.

Okay, half-Jewish. His father Alois's real surname was Schickelgrueber, literally "Shekel-digger," and he was the illegitimate son of a Jew. Hitler had his ancestral village destroyed to hide the evidence.

[Grenouille]

Originally posted by Charles_Bronson
You cannot measure evil.

The funny thing about Hitler is that we somehow seem to believe that the world would never tolerate another one. This is, of course, dead wrong. Since Hitler, the world has tolerated dozens of Hitlers, all approximately as bad as the first, although none quite as successful.

While the world has tolerated brutal, despicable and murderous leaders, none of them come close to Hitler.

Kill ten persons is the same as killing thousands. Both are major crimes against humanity. Hitler is no more "evil" than Slobodan. Neither Saddam is more evil than Hitler.

It`s the same for the ten persons killed. Individual suffering can not be compared. But if you compare it on a historical scale, it`s not the same.

Slobodan and Saddam surely belong to the scum of the earth, but making them equal to Hitler only minimizes the crimes of Hitler and the Germans.

Open any history book, and see how many lines of text talk about the Holocaust. Now, search about the Gipsy in the book, and tell me: Why the jews deserves so much more attention than the gipsy? Because the Jews were much more influential in history. The gispy no, they are people who were nomads and poor throught all history. And the jews never were as poor as the gipsy, by the way. And take a closer look in your history book and look for Serra Leoa, and see if there are more entries than Bosnia war.

The murder of the jews deserves a larger coverage in history books because german antisemitism was one of the major motivations of Hitler and Germans to start the second world war, which was a crusade to exterminate the jewish people, which, according to national socialist weltanschauung, were the "enemy of the aryan race", and leading a "war against the german people". Hitler believed in a global jewish conspiracy, which he wanted to smash by killing every single jew in the world.

Just because the nazis killed jews in industrial way it doesn´t make ANY difference than killing Gipsies in old ways.

The motivation of the killings makes a big difference.
You cannot ignore this. The method of industrial killings is a product of this motivation.

Auschwitz was a factory of death, designed for the most effective elimination of life. This is what some call the truely revolutionary concept of the german death industry.

While the Gulag of the Soviet Union did also cause millions to die, those deaths were not the primary goal of the camps. The Gulag was designed as a labor camp, with little to no consideration of it`s slave inmates life. Still, the gulag were following an utilitarian goal, as a labor camp.

The german death camps´ primary goal however was the eliminiation of life.

Another important point: Germany`s project of a jew-free world was of higher priority to the german leadership than winning the war. Logistical resources that were essential to the war effort were rather used to transport jews to the extermination camps than troops and arms to the front.

[Grenouille]

Originally posted by Alexander01



Okay, half-Jewish. His father Alois's real surname was Schickelgrueber, literally "Shekel-digger," and he was the illegitimate son of a Jew. Hitler had his ancestral village destroyed to hide the evidence.

First of, let me explain that there is not such a thing as half-jewish. You´re either jew, or you´re not.

"Halbjuden", "Vierteljuden" and similar **** are a Nazi invention, following the nazi ideology of a "jewish race".

You are a jew if you are born by a jewish mother or converted to Judaism. By that definition, Hitler surely wasn´t a jew.

As for Hitler`s father being illegitimate son of a jew, I think this is only a theory that`s disputed among historians.

As far as I know, there are some uncertainties about Hitler`s family tree, that led some historians to believe that he might have had a jewish ancestor, while most do think that this is rather unlikely.

But in the end, it doesn´t matter, anyway.

[Grenouille]

Oh, and Braunau wasn`t destroyed by Hitler. Where did you get this from?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Grenouille
Oh, and Braunau wasn`t destroyed by Hitler. Where did you get this from?

Not Hitler's birthplace, Braunau.
Hitler's ancestral village, Döllersheim.

Hitler was not trying to cover up his own birth; he was trying to cover up any evidence of his father and grandfather.

[Grenouille]

Originally posted by Alexander01


Not Hitler's birthplace, Braunau.
Hitler's ancestral village, Döllersheim.

Hitler was not trying to cover up his own birth; he was trying to cover up any evidence of his father and grandfather.

Oh. I didn´t know that.
But in the end, even if the reason for that would be, that Hitler had a jewish ancestor, it would only lead the nazi race ideology more ad absurdum.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Grenouille


First of, let me explain that there is not such a thing as half-jewish. You´re either jew, or you´re not.

"Halbjuden", "Vierteljuden" and similar **** are a Nazi invention, following the nazi ideology of a "jewish race".

You are a jew if you are born by a jewish mother or converted to Judaism. By that definition, Hitler surely wasn´t a jew.

As for Hitler`s father being illegitimate son of a jew, I think this is only a theory that`s disputed among historians.

As far as I know, there are some uncertainties about Hitler`s family tree, that led some historians to believe that he might have had a jewish ancestor, while most do think that this is rather unlikely.

But in the end, it doesn´t matter, anyway.

Well, there used to be a Jewish race, back in ancient times (rather, they were a branch of the Hebrews), so one was a Jew if he was a descendant of Judah: a member of his tribe.

The genetics have been so diluted over the milennia that you are correct, there is no longer a Jewish race. But Hitler wasn't trying to eradicate merely their faith. He wanted to eradicate anybody who had ever been considered Jewish or connected to them by ancestry. That's why he tried to hide his.

And.please don't get offended or react with spite. If you will look over my earlier posts about this debate throughout this forum, you will find that I have attempted to deal with this issue cordially, frankly and without offense.

[Grenouille]

I´m not offended or do react with spite. I also try to to be cordial, frankly and without offense. If any of my posts sound otherwise, I`m sorry.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Grenouille
I´m not offended or do react with spite. I also try to to be cordial, frankly and without offense. If any of my posts sound otherwise, I`m sorry.

Well that's settled then.