Hitler as a leader

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I think this little number says it best.

Hitler rap

[Virdrago]

Cesaer had thousands of Christians tortured and killed, Gengius Khan would have entired towns eradicated woman and children included,

Which Caesar? Julius and Augustus died before Christianity ever showed up. The Christians for many years were a sect bent on the overthrow of the Roman Empire (if you read Revelations in the Bible, the "enemy" was Rome, not the devil). They didn't consider themselves separate from Jews until years after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70.

The cities Genghis destroyed were those who went against him, and didn't go with him. He did not selectively choose certain elements of the population to wipe out, it was everyone. After all, he had one/tenth (or less) the population of any of his neighbors, at first. Of course, I'm not saying he wasn't brutal...

The Germans didn't "fall in line", they found a leader who could take them out of a twenty-year depression caused by the reparations other countries wanted from the first Great War. One who promised a way to get back at those countries for causing the recession. This isn't an opinion, it is fact. When one is oppressed, either you fight back or stay subservient until you disappear as a culture.

Had America not become involved in WW2 there is a very real chance that the Axis could have taken total control of Europe, Africa, and most of Asia. From there who knows but chances are they would not have stopped.

There's proof that WWII probably would have ended the same way without American "assistance", since Hitler overstretched his troops by attacking the Soviets, and stopped bombing British airstrips after Hamburg was attacked. It just would have taken longer to end it. Japan had no intention on attacking the Soviets while they were still island-grabbing, so they didn't help Germany. Instead, they attacked Pearl Harbour. Which didn't help them, of course.

At the same time, I believe the Russians shouldn't have Stalin (I think Lenin was a better leader, he just didn't lead very long to show it, unfortunately), and the Chinese have 2500 years of history to find a leader or two who is more suited than Mao. We may just have needed a couple of communist leaders for the inevitable World War/ Cold War scenarios that pop up in all the civ mods.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Pinchak


Cesaer had thousands of Christians tortured and killed

These must have been some time-travelling Christians, since Julius Ceasar died in 44 BC and Augustus in 14 AD.

[Pinchak]

I love all the flack you catch if you disagree with widely accepted beliefs.

All in all, I admit, I was playing devils advocate for the sake of discussion. Moral issues tend to be very interesting to debate simply because they can be so subjective.

My apoligies to anyone from Germany for my more personal comments. I realize not all Germans are into scat porn, and David Hasslehoff. Not all Germans are cold and souless (the ones i worked with where though, sometimes I wondered where the batterys went in, this might have been more due to the fact that they were all engineers rather then German). Being part German myself i felt a certain liberty to throw around a few sterotypes.

But back to the topic at hand... Hitler and his presence in Civ.

To address some comments....

I don't think that you can compare the Germans with America. The Germans still feel very guilty for what their nation has done in the last century

I think it is a pretty good compairson. In both examples the exploitation/demise of a specific race of people was supported by a government. The main difference is, and the point i was trying to make, is that when said government finally decides to take responsablity for their actions, they can go about it different ways. Personally, I think censoring symbols is not only a band-aid fix, but may actually be counter productive in the long run.

All they want is not another world war started by Germany. Not again! And therefor they have strict laws consering the Nazis and Hitler.

I give the German people more credit than to think that without censorship they would once again fall into the Nazi mindset after seeing what it brought in the past.

Perhaps it's hard to understand from an American point of view how hard both world wars have hitted the old continent last century.

I don't live there, so i agree that I perhaps don't have the full feel of the impact it left. Both of my Grandfathers were injured in WW2 however, and I know enough about the war to understand the magnitued of it.

I guess what bothers me is that atrocitys have been taking place on earth since the dawn of man. They still do as we speak. Yet, Hitler and the third reich are almost synonomus with Satan. So very taboo that they get banned from a game? Honestly, is what they did really so much worse than alot of other stuff that has gone on in history?

Realize that history is written by the winners. I'm not in any way supporting what the Nazis did, but I really don't consider it much worse than, say... modern day China's treatment of certain religious sects. Hey, at least the Nazis for the most part just killed people. China tortures people to death.

I think the decision not to include Hitler into Civ4 is not due to an obscure (and non-existing) law, but just to avoid bad press about the game.

The game has the use of slavery. The game allows nuclear war. The game includes the ability to slaughter native peoples in the name of expansion (barbs). I guess I just simply don't understand why Hitler and the Nazis get put into a special little "untouchable" catagory of taboo.

The Germans didn't "fall in line", they found a leader who could take them out of a twenty-year depression caused by the reparations other countries wanted from the first Great War. One who promised a way to get back at those countries for causing the recession.

They still embraced it, even with the morally objectable aspects. Are you suggesting that killing off a race of people and waging war with the world is justified just because you are in an economic depression?

There's proof that WWII probably would have ended the same way without American "assistance", since Hitler overstretched his troops by attacking the Soviets, and stopped bombing British airstrips after Hamburg was attacked. It just would have taken longer to end it.

LOL, as soon as i read this I knew you were european. I doubt there is actual hard "proof" as you say that it would have went the same way. Without the invasion at Normandy, Hitler would not have had to split his force to two fronts, and would have taken the Soviets eventually. Not to mention all the hardware American supplied it's allies (that is a whole thread in itself). Lets also not forget that Germany was experimenting with nuclear weapons. Had the war been drawn out longer, he may have achived them. Wouldn't that have been fun!

Sorry, the Americans were the turning point. Hitler had Europe and North Africa lock stock and barrel before American intervention.


Whew Ok, let the flaming begin!

[Pinchak]

Oh, about the Roman/Christian thing...

I guess i miss spoke. The two leaders in civ didn't do it, but the Romans did at a later date.

Therefore, I call for a banning of the Roman empire in Civ! As a Christian, I find it highly offensive that the producers of this game would allow an empire that killed my people!

[Flhaus]

I agree with almost everything you say... Except hitler did more than "just kill people" The torture, mutilation, experimentation, exploitation, and wholesale slaughter of a race of people is more appropriate then saying "He Just killed people" This minimizes what really happened.

I do not have a problem though having the nazis represented in the game. We can't stick our heads in the sand and act as though it nevered happened. I think the misguided concept of not offending anyone by not putting Hitler in there plays into the hands of folks that say the Holicaust never happened. The biggest trick of the devil is to make you believe he doesn't exist!

[Tattila the Hun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSvRVwXnfL0

[Alexander I]

Hitler could always be an English leader

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYMwapGunhQ&mode=related&search=

John Cleese as Mr. H

[MJW]

This theard does not matter. Again, Hitler will never be an offical Germain Leader Head because they would ban the game in Germainy.

[Pinchak]

So as an American who (hopefully) embraces free speech, how does it make you feel to have your game censored to satisfy the Germans?

[MontyMustDie]

Originally posted by Pinchak

Sorry, the Americans were the turning point. Hitler had Europe and North Africa lock stock and barrel before American intervention.

No, seriously, read up on the subject. The turning point was Hitler's decision to attack Russia. While the Germans had a superiorly trained and organized military to overwhelm the out-dated and out-numbered troops of Poland, Denmark and Norway, and outwit the hopelessly inefficiently organized French (not to mention being completely oblivious to the rules of neutrality, hence the aquisition of BeNeLux and the parts of Eastern Europe not their allies), they had in no way any kind of manpower or industrial strength to compete with the _vast_ productivity advantage of Communist Soviet.

Remember that the German's weren't even adapting a war-time economy before the first losses on the Eastern front; Stalin had been churning out weaponry like mad since 37-38. Adding to that, the Russians enjoyed huge advantages on natural resources and manpower. This was one of Hitler's arguments for delivering the initial strike in '39 - by doing so he hoped to have established a sizeable Lebensraum _before_ their industrial superiorty made Soviet an inassailable influence on his east flank. His generals, of course, argued the other way around - they wanted time to transform the economy and to build more firepower before going to action.

Hitler repeated the same argument, enforced by his initial successes, in '41. Which turned out to be his and Nazi Germany's downfall.

And don't start harping on about lend-lease. A good chunck of the gear sent to the Russians was obsolete; a good example being the Sherman M4 mk3 tanks which were more or less battered to smithereens at Kursk (and far inferior to any Tiger or T-34 about).

If you read Frankson and Zetterling's "Battle of Kursk" this point gets chillingly clear; the Germans had the Soviets on the run at several points, utilizing the Wehrmacht's fluidity, impeccable training and their ground-breaking de-centralized organization. In the end, however, the Soviets broke their back _squarely_ by just shoveling manpower on them, take extremely (and chillingly) little regard to human loss.

That kind of machine the Germans would not have been able to stop. Americans or no Americans.

As for how the American (and allied!) intervention in '44 helped shaped the European map for the following next 50 years of cold war, ah, now that's a completely different cup of tea.

Finally, with regards to further reading on the WWII, I dare suggest that any person attempting to pose as informed on the matter should read AJP Taylor's "The origins of the Second World War." While anyone can (should!) form their own opinion on the matter, his argument for WWII being just as much an event of diplomatic mismanagement as WWI is indeed compelling, intruiging and fluid.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Pinchak
So as an American who (hopefully) embraces free speech, how does it make you feel to have your game censored to satisfy the Germans?

it's annoying but its 'fire-axis's' game to

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MontyMustDie
No, seriously, read up on the subject. The turning point was Hitler's decision to attack Russia. While the Germans had a superiorly trained and organized military to overwhelm the out-dated and out-numbered troops of Poland, Denmark and Norway, and outwit the hopelessly inefficiently organized French (not to mention being completely oblivious to the rules of neutrality, hence the aquisition of BeNeLux and the parts of Eastern Europe not their allies), they had in no way any kind of manpower or industrial strength to compete with the _vast_ productivity advantage of Communist Soviet.

Remember that the German's weren't even adapting a war-time economy before the first losses on the Eastern front; Stalin had been churning out weaponry like mad since 37-38. Adding to that, the Russians enjoyed huge advantages on natural resources and manpower. This was one of Hitler's arguments for delivering the initial strike in '39 - by doing so he hoped to have established a sizeable Lebensraum _before_ their industrial superiorty made Soviet an inassailable influence on his east flank. His generals, of course, argued the other way around - they wanted time to transform the economy and to build more firepower before going to action.

Hitler repeated the same argument, enforced by his initial successes, in '41. Which turned out to be his and Nazi Germany's downfall.

And don't start harping on about lend-lease. A good chunck of the gear sent to the Russians was obsolete; a good example being the Sherman M4 mk3 tanks which were more or less battered to smithereens at Kursk (and far inferior to any Tiger or T-34 about).

If you read Frankson and Zetterling's "Battle of Kursk" this point gets chillingly clear; the Germans had the Soviets on the run at several points, utilizing the Wehrmacht's fluidity, impeccable training and their ground-breaking de-centralized organization. In the end, however, the Soviets broke their back _squarely_ by just shoveling manpower on them, take extremely (and chillingly) little regard to human loss.

That kind of machine the Germans would not have been able to stop. Americans or no Americans.

As for how the American (and allied!) intervention in '44 helped shaped the European map for the following next 50 years of cold war, ah, now that's a completely different cup of tea.

Finally, with regards to further reading on the WWII, I dare suggest that any person attempting to pose as informed on the matter should read AJP Taylor's "The origins of the Second World War." While anyone can (should!) form their own opinion on the matter, his argument for WWII being just as much an event of diplomatic mismanagement as WWI is indeed compelling, intruiging and fluid.

That's all true and dandy, but American history education (which consists of watching "Saving Private Ryan" twelve times in a row) says otherwise.

[Pinchak]

Actually, I get most of my WW2 education from the History Channel.

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Pinchak

They still embraced it, even with the morally objectable aspects. Are you suggesting that killing off a race of people and waging war with the world is justified just because you are in an economic depression?

No, no. I would never say that. Unfortunately, it happened. Now the world (not just Germany) has to deal with it (racism) finally, because of it. Hitler needed someone to blame internally before he could take out his insanity on his neighbouring countries. Jews were the scapegoat.

LOL, as soon as i read this I knew you were european. I doubt there is actual hard "proof" as you say that it would have went the same way. Without the invasion at Normandy, Hitler would not have had to split his force to two fronts, and would have taken the Soviets eventually. Not to mention all the hardware American supplied it's allies (that is a whole thread in itself). Lets also not forget that Germany was experimenting with nuclear weapons. Had the war been drawn out longer, he may have achived them. Wouldn't that have been fun!

Nope, I'm Canadian. My dad's family was under Nazi rule in Slovakia, and my grandfather on my mom's side fought in Egypt and Italy for the South African army. I also get most of my WWII info from the History channel, though I read a lot, too. We get a lot of Canadian and British programming as well, though, so my perspective may be skewed differently than yours.

I would never flame; even if I disagree with you.