Stalin in Civ?

[Mr. Lucky]

Here's the on-topic bottom line:

Hitler is ILLEGAL in important CIV-buying markets. Free speech does not apply to N A Z I symbols. Whether we like that or not, CIV will not include him, and make their game illegal, for that reason. No other leader is that way and thus they all might get in, Stalin included.

The off-topic point is:

People in the West respect communism more because the intellectual elites respect it and that influences popular opinion. It's still not exactly popular, but it's not beyond the pale either. As Zirk noted, people who have actually experienced it and escaped, or outlasted it, often have a different opinion than Western theorists.

Mr. Lucky.

[Stuffe]

I think Hitler isn't in the game because all the other leaders in the game achieved something or was good at something and Hitler wasn't. The people you mentioned earlier Washington, Napoleon, Genghis were all tactical masterminds (especially the last two). So where Mao and the reason Lenin is in the game is that he did in fact also manage to pull Russia into the industrial age. I do not think that if Hitler was in the game, the game would be banned in Germany. There is a huge difference between promoting Nazi stuff and to just mention it as history. As far as i know Germans don't censor articles and history books that includes things about Hitler, so why should they start to. My conclusion is all the leaders in the game have achieved something or was excellent at something in some way. And i therefore think that that is the criteria for being in the game, nothing else.

To the off-topic, i totally agree with you.

[Mr. Lucky]

Well, I may be mistaken, perhaps someone more familiar with Germany can fill me in. I believe, however that any game that features swastikas(not in the game) or allowed the player to play as H itler would run afoul of current German law.

And again, he accomplished as much or more 'good' than Napoleon, and maybe some others as well (Genghis?) He conquered all of Europe, held it for a while, and then was defeated.

Why include Stalin, when there are plenty of Czars to choose from: WW2. Why include Roosevelt when there are plenty of Presidents to choose from: WW2. Why include Churchill when there are plenty of Monarchs to choose from: WW2. Personally, I'm not sure that WW2 alone is a good enough reason to add someone in, except maybe for Churchill, but if since it is the reason used, to not include H itler for the same reason is just bizarre.

It's not like 'Germany' has been united for that long and there is a deep bench of well-known German leaders to choose from. When you think of famous German rulers you think of H itler. And uhh... Bismarck... Wilhelm... and uhh... Queen Elizabeth? You could make a case for Charlemagne maybe. A Holy Roman Emperor of your choice?

But there is another complelling reason not to include him. It would royally screw up sales in a major market.

Mr. Lucky

[Stuffe]

Napoleon won the french revolution created an army and conquered through Europe. Unlike Hitler he was commanding the troops himself and he was VERY skilled at doing so. As mentioned in another post Genghis formed the second largest empire in the history (slightly smaller than the British). So he is worthy as a civ leader for sure. Hitler was not especially good at the military thing and he was not good at reforming his empire (killing large potions of your population is not a very good strategy seen from a financial point of view). Sure the armies he build conquered, but Germany IS the power nation of Europe and has been since it was formed (less than 100 years before this by Bismarck). Hitler did not do anything any other leader in his position couldn't have done, in fact using too much resources on killing Jews and as i said earlier attacking both mighty USA and unconquerable Russia is a very bad idea, especially when you already have the British on your neck. He was a poor-mediocre leader and therefore do not deserve to be in civ.

And yes Bismarck was a WAY better leader. He kicked the Austrians but in 7 days and then moved on and took the french. (He did this with only Prussia, a part of what is now Germany)

[Mr. Lucky]

Napoleon wished to conquer Europe and did so. H itler wished to conquer Europe and did so. To say that H itler didn't personally command troops is splitting hairs and inconsequential. They both imposed their personal will over great parts of Europe. You can say, correctly, that they did so in different ways, but the critical fact remains that they both did so. And they both made mistakes, Napoleon went after Russia as well, don't forget.

And to say that anyone dealt H itlers hand could've done what he did is revisionist nonsense. He took a beaten country, made it strong and then bent the entire country largely to his personal will. And then he used it quite sucessfully on the world stage. That doesn't happen very often. And his defeat was not the forgone conclusion it may appear to be from history books, it was a near thing.

Mr. Lucky

[Dis]

He couldn't have survived. There was no way. Perhaps if he didn't attack Russia. But then Russia may have attacked them. Who knows.

In either case. I'm not crying myself to sleep that Hitler isn't in the game. It wasn't a legitimate goverment to begin with.

[Stuffe]

ok last post, because this can go on forever.

Yes they both conquered Europe, but i still think Napoleon is far more worthy due to these reasons:
- Napoleon also anticipated in the french revolution
- Napoleon was unlike Hitler commanding his own people on the battlefield, which he was very good at. In fact he had studied the art of war since he was a little boy.
- Germany was the strongest force in Europe and would probably have conquered England, had it not been for Hitlers stupid attacks on the far superior forces USA and Russia.
- Germany had many combat experienced veterans from WW1

You might say Hitler was a ninth greater who beat up the whole kindergarten, and then tried to beat up all the other ninth graders at the same time. Of cause he got his ass kicked. Napoleon beat up people his own age and he was a very very skilled general. Until atlast ofcause he tried to conquer unconquereble Russia.

George Bush beat up Afghanistan and Iraq. And he could beat up the whole middle east if he wanted to (and the public allowed him). Would this make him a good leader? Dont think so.

Many of the countries Hitler took was poorly defended, they offered no real resistance. Germany lost 4 people during the invasion of Denmark and that might look good on paper, but it sure doesn't count for anything in my book.

[Mr. Lucky]

Ok, I'll be done too after this one...

I think you are missing the point of Leadership by focusing on military ability as the only measure. Basically, you're splitting hairs on one aspect of Leadership and finding overall differences where there aren't any.

Being a leader does not mean you've studied the art of war or you are good at tactics. It means you LEAD. People choose to follow you. They accomplish the things that you direct them to accomplish. The more that do, and the more they accomplish, the more effective a LEADER you are.

Both H itler and Napoleon had this sometimes-mysterious quality in spades. Napoleon added tactical genius. H itler added a rare political acumen. They both had faults as leaders as well. H itler's are fairly well documented. Napoleon was widely viewed as the worst kind of despot in his time.

You can't excuse Napoleon's Russian adventure by saying he was a genius until he tried to invade Russia; and then call H itler stupid because he did the same thing.

You also can't say H itler had it easier because no one fought him. Stop focusing on military tactics! If no one fought him it was because he diplomatically or politically defeated them. Napoleon had ZERO capability in this regard, in fact it's the primary reason he lost. Even nations that h ated each other h ated Napoleon more. Not France, Napoleon and what he stood for. His tactics couldn't overcome that.

Basically, you might be able to say that one was a more effective leader than the other, but they are definitely in the same class. Their results were identical--they controlled all of Europe for a short time and were ultimately defeated. If one is included they both should be, unless there is another reason.

Such as torpedoing your German sales if you include H itler.

Mr. Lucky

[Dis]

That's an interesting point. It kind of amazes me that Hitler was able to have absolute control over the country. He was a leader. No one dared to question the final solution or anything. Sure, there was always that fear factor of being killed for disobeying. But he wouldn't have gotten to the top so quickly without some leadership skills (and some underhanded stuff). It always amazes me that he was able to rise to power so quickly. How could one party take power so easily? I know things were different back then, and looks weren't important as they are now. But he was an ugly, hateful man; yet he was able to easily get power of an entire nation.

Not to knock Napoleon. He kept coming back and coming back. He always had supporters. He also had a loyal following.

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by Mr. Lucky


Such as torpedoing your German sales if you include H itler.

Mr. Lucky

Who the heck is H itler? Herbert Itler? Howard?

I just don't understand your spelling of the name... Unless you're german, and even typing Hitler gets cencored by the german version of Internet Explorer... Which would be rather bad.

[Pythagoras]

Its purely because he's Hitler. Its not about fact, its about perception. Most historically uneducated (American) people equate Hitler to Holocaust, Stalin to some Russian leader and Mao to some Chinese dude. Oh and Napolean was the guy in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure who was French and important.

In fact, looking at the world leaders in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, there seems to be a correlation to the leaders in Civ 1. Coincidence?

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
Stalin to some Russian leader and Mao to some Chinese dude. Oh and Napolean was the guy in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure who was French and important.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
Its purely because he's Hitler. Its not about fact, its about perception. Most historically uneducated (American) people equate Hitler to Holocaust, Stalin to some Russian leader and Mao to some Chinese dude. Oh and Napolean was the guy in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure who was French and important.

In fact, looking at the world leaders in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, there seems to be a correlation to the leaders in Civ 1. Coincidence?

I thought it was common knowledge that the Civ series was strongly influenced by the Bill & Ted movies and novelizations.

[Blaupanzer]

Napoleon developed the Code Napoleon, a non-religious legal code in use in many of your countries today. He developed a process for allowing scholars to advance "natural science" studies which greatly benefitted the first half of the 19th century. He stole art and accumulated it in one place -- which many people appear to think was cool since they visit the Louvre today.

Napoleon did not massacre large groups of people simply because they were born. He did not propagate the theory that some people were racially superior to other people. Hitler did. Enuff said.

[Nikolai]

Who's Bill & Ted?