Just wondering since I know anything to do with the Nazis is Illegal in Germany I was curious if the German version has a diffrent quote for when you discover Facisism as apposed to the Adolf Hitler quote?? I cant rember it exactly but something like "it is easier to convince people of a big lie then a small one" - Adolf Hitler.

It's the same.
And it isnt like anything related to the Nazis is illegal over here - just the display of swastikas and stuff like that - you can even buy Hitlers "Mein Kampf", as long as it's for educational purposes only.

Really? thats interesting I didnt know that.

but thanks for your reply cause I didnt think that it would be the same. obviously I was wrong.

Well, you can't expect people to get over things like the Third Reich if you make them ignore their past. If you ignored it and didn't think and/or talked about it, you would keep prejudices and propaganda (like "there were no concentration camps"), you wouldn't be able to get over them.
So making everything that has to do with Hitler or the Nazis illegal wouldn't be the right way to deal with that problematic past of ours.

It's the same.
And it isnt like anything related to the Nazis is illegal over here - just the display of swastikas and stuff like that - you can even buy Hitlers "Mein Kampf", as long as it's for educational purposes only.

so what happens if you go into a bookstore and try to buy a copy of 'mein kampf'? do they ask you "are you going to be using this for educational purposes?" and you have to say "sure, whatever" before they can sell it to you?

Also, it's a very good and valid quote, and just because Hitler said it doesn't make it less so.

There are a few things which are illegal, like the display of swastikas (this was the reason why the original "Castle Wolfenstein" couldn't be sold openly here), singing the first two stanzas of our national anthem (not originated by the Nazis, but utterly abused by them), several Nazi songs are illegal to sing (Horst-Wessel-Sog for example), it is illegal to print "Mein Kampf" (although it is legal to own it or sell used copies), making the Nazi greeting gesture (raised right arm) is illegal, distributing Nazi (or similar) propaganda is illegal too (as is racist propaganda in general). It is also illegal to claim that the Holocaust didn't happen.

So the OP is right in the sense that many things concerning Hitler and Nazism are illegal in Germany. Quotes from Hitler (like the one in Civ) aren't among those however. Actually, the game could have chosen Hitler as one of the German leaders and would still have remained legal (although many people would have considered that as bad taste, so it was a better decision to leave him out).

so what happens if you go into a bookstore and try to buy a copy of 'mein kampf'? do they ask you "are you going to be using this for educational purposes?" and you have to say "sure, whatever" before they can sell it to you?

You cannot buy it in regular bookstores because the book cannot be printed legally here (because of copyright issues). Second hand bookshops may have it though. There are also legal annotated versions which don't have the full text. It's also possible to have it imported from other countries, which makes the prohibition to print it here somewhat useless. This decision was made before the internet and globalization kicked in.

Three posts in a row ... meh ;)

Just found out that in the German text, Hitler's name does not appear. (I'm playing the English version so I didn't notice this.) The quote is the same, but instead of Hitler's name the source is labeled "German dictator".

Just found out that in the German text, Hitler's name does not appear. (I'm playing the English version so I didn't notice this.) The quote is the same, but instead of Hitler's name the source is labeled "German dictator".

I noticed that too. The peculiar thing is that his name appears in other sections of the civilopedia in the german version.

What about the American band Kiss, that uses two runic sigs in the fashion of the Nazi SS?

I gather this generated some controversy in Germany, and they therefore decided to publish a Greatest Hits in Germany that had normal s's instead of runic s's.

The astonishing thing is that two members of Kiss are in fact Jewish.

I noticed that too. The peculiar thing is that his name appears in other sections of the civilopedia in the german version.

But not everywhere where it appears in the other languages. They kept the name in the historical summaries of England and Germany. They deleted it in the "mass media" tech decription where - in the text for the other languages - Hitler is described as a "masterful speaker" (together with Churchill and Roosevelt). They also deleted it in the tech decription for Fascism, where it's mentioned that he had been democratically elected (which is certainly debatable). So they only kept his name where deleting him would have left an obvious hole.

Which is probably a good approach. There are already many German politicians who see video games as something dangerous. If they got the impression that a computer game somehow "promoted" Hitler - the effect might be comparable to the "Hot Coffee" affair in the US. Firaxis seems to have taken a "better safe than sorry" approach.

What about the American band Kiss, that uses two runic sigs in the fashion of the Nazi SS?

I gather this generated some controversy in Germany, and they therefore decided to publish a Greatest Hits in Germany that had normal s's instead of runic s's.

That's correct.

The runic s'ses are difficult to grasp by law. The display of the Nazi SS signs is illegal, however not every runic s displayed anywhere bears a direct connection to the Nazi SS. Whether runic s'ses are considered illegal, or just bad taste, is a matter of context.

Many Germans are (understandably) very sensitive about this. Just about half a year ago, someone had to leave a German reality TV program because he had a (half-concealed) tattoo of two runic s'ses on his arm. He stated that these just depicted the s'ses from the band Kiss, but this didn't help him. The producers of the program didn't want to risk bad publicity or even legal problems and removed him from the show.

The sensitivity may be partly due to the reason that there are still some misled people who kind of worship these symbols. They are a very small minority, but - sadly - they do exist. :(

Can you really blame the Germans for being careful? By brushing it off as something not that bad, it can slowly get worse and escalate. Before WWII started the bullying of the jews wasn't considered something to seriously worry about. If they would have known from start that it would end up with massively shoving jews into gas chambers I am sure the German population wouldn't ever have let it escalate like that and not have tolerated the bullying either.


I don't think Mein Kampf is available in bookstores in Germany, probably special order. I'm even surprised it is allowed there, because in the Netherlands it isn't. Only museums are allowed to own it is what I know.. I might be wrong though. I wouldn't want to read it personally anyway, so I'm not bothered.

The mein kampf is a wonderfull book, it changed my life, i had insomnia, but now i can read this sh*t at the pc and sleep
its boring, stupid and pointless, Hitler is very persuasive, but ignorant, racist and etc
it was able to lure people in the past, but now only the TRUE ignorant would follow it ¬¬

Banning political books? Hmmm ... that sounds familiar.

The best way to turn people off Nazism is to make them actually read Mein Kampf (on the same principle that you turn a kid off smoking by making him smoke the whole damn cigar).

I understand that as many Nazis actually read Mein Kampf as communists actually read Das Kapital - i.e. almost zip. Both were just bookcase decorations for the hacks and sycophants.

So denying an "event" in history is illegal in germany? Why can't you deny the hollocaust? Wow, what if I deny the birth of christ? What If I am stuipd and I deny the invasion of Iraq. How can denying an event in history add to racism? Hope denying 911 wont be banned anytime soon. Im still having fun with the conspiracy theories.

Apart from his ideas for what germany should aquire and his racism, which was mad and stupid beyond anything, he had his bright moments when it came to understand how people, especcialy people in crowds, work and how they are best manipulated.
It was a bad thing that this as merged in his body together, so he could use his right insights about human behavior to get the power and then made his wicked ideas true.
But as already said, the actual quote in the game is true, its all too proven. And its better to know it, and to know the one who really "ab"used this knowlegde. Should help to prevent such things in the future.

Just out of curousity would it be illegal for someone in Germany to do say a school project on Hitler for a Biography or something?? just curious as it is for "educational" purposes could you show pictures of Hitler and the Nazis and the SS and all that?

If not then I find that to be alittle wrong. I understand it's a sensitve area but still you can't just completly wipe out a decade from your history. It may not of been a nice time for Germans but never the less it did happpen.

Another thing I find disconcerting is when you see swastikas and stuffs in text books and stuff or on desks at School. Obvisouly I doubt you have this In Germany but here in Canada I see that almost everyday at school. Also people with swastika tattoes. I Really don't know why kids seem to be obssed with this but maybe because they don't really understand what that symbol means and are just trying to be rebelious or whatever i dunno but I find very disgusting to see that Drawn all over text books and scaped into desks and stuff. Maybe it's like the anarchy symbol that people wear and draw all over also. it's just become a fasion fad and people where it but have no idea what it really means.

Just to add another little tid bit in here. I have read like 5 biographys on Hitler, done several school progects on him. Simply because I find him to be fascinating the whole story is very intersting and i personally think the Man was a genious. Most people can't see past the bad stigma that has been placed on him . And as much bad stuff that he did he did essentially everything that he said he would do.

The key issue with Nazi stuff in Germany is: As long as it is educational/scientific, no problem.
As soon as it is glorification, or on toys for minors, it's banned.
And btw, I fully agree with that method.
"Mein Kampf" kann be simply bought in bookstores - but only commented versions. FWIW...

Oh, and btw, the 2nd stanza of the Deutschlandlied is legal. It's just so utterly bad, and outdated...("Von der Maas bis an die Memel, von der Etsch bis an den Belt" = proposed German borders mid-19th century...well, the Maas is somewhat in reach, but everything else?)

in austria swastikas and any nsdap related signs are forbidden.
mein kampf is completely illegal, sayings that glorify nationalsocialism are prosecutable...

Interesting discussion. Allow me a couple of remarks here:

@Psyringe / Doc Tsiolkovski

You go a *bit* overboard ;) In fact, the first two stanzas of our national anthem are *NOT* "illegal" or the like, although many believe them to be. You might go downtown and sing them openly. However, our first post-war chancellor decreed that "the first two stanzas will not be sung at official occasions". No more, no less. It's nothing but a convention.

Ironically, though, the somewhat famous / notorious first stanza ("Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt" / "Germany, Germany above everything, above everything in the world") means outright the OPPOSITE of what most people understand by it: It means Germany above not OTHER nations, but above the small countries that where "german" when that text was written - it was a hymn to the union of those many small countries (Hessia, Bavaria, Prussia etc.).


About "Mein Kampf" and it's availability: In bookstores, you get an abbreviated and carefully commented version only. You can, however, buy the original print legally as an antiquity (I own one myself - the most horrible stuff I've ever read - especially style-wise...*brrr*), and it is, of course, available in university lbraries for study. The fun fact is that there is no real law about it (although,again,many believe it to be "illegal") - the sub-state of Bavaria was the legal heir of Adolf Hitler, who had his german home in Munich, and so Bavaria inherited the copyright... and has never known how to handle the delicate affair. Since the book was written 1929 IIRC, and copyright ends after 80 years, we should see a couple of reprints in Germany around 2009. He who is interested can, of course, get the unabridged text from the web easily nowadays ;)


@Chopperhead

You are allowed to use any Nazi material for educational purposes. However, one should be a bit careful about it. Our judges take this quite seriously. Satiric use and art is allowed, too - but it must be recognizable as such. Raising the right arm, shouting "Heil Hitler!" and afterwards saying: "It was just a joke" does NOT work.

We have the discussion about what is allowed and what is not again and again. E.g. we indeed have an own law saying it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust. This, of course, is a problem, because it contradicts freedom of speech AND makes it somewhat difficult to do historical research on the topic. Same story with the allegedly killed "6 million jews". Nobody REALLY knows whether that number is even roughly correct. Could have been more, less... doesn't really matter, does it? Murdering 1 million people is not really better or less evil than killing 6 millions of them. Nevertheless, 6 millions it is, and one should be VERY careful openly doubting that "official number" over here.

This might seem weird, but I know some of those neo-nazis: They would - if they could - try to erode the number. They wouldn't outright DENY the Holocaust as such, but they would diminish the number of victims ever so slowly... until, at the end of the process, the Holocaust would seem like "just another witch hunt, nothing special".

Concerning swastikas and Sig-runes: Yes, we have them here, too. I guess about 95% of them, however, are nothing but the outward signs of youthful protest behaviour. Some draw the "anarchy A", some like the cannabis flower, some the swastika, and again others stay with 4-letter words. As long as it is a taboo, it's ok for these guys. Only very few of these inscriptions or etchings really bear any political meaning.

But, of course, there is one solid reason why some people so love the "nazi cult": Because Hitler and his companions WERE geniuses in propaganda, and they managed to build a perverted cult that was so strong and so appealing to many people's deeper desires that it still survives today. It was the cult of the strong, the bold, the reckless - not THAT different in some respects from several youth cults, hiphop mentality and such.

At last, about Hitler being a "genius". Well, I said so regarding his propaganda talents, but that about sums it up. He basically had 3 talents and was quite clueless on every other area:

- He knew how to impress the masses
- He had a very strong charisma (some of which came from his habitual acting)
- He, as a dabbler in practically an area, had the talent of seeing the chances of new, unconventional ideas

And, no, he did not essentially do everything he said he would do - just the opposite. He neither built the "1000 years Reich", nor did he weaken Judaism in the world... just the opposite, no? He did NOT defeat communism, he did NOT promote the "aryan race" etc. He did not even succeed in his minor promises, e.g. a car for everyone or jobs for everybody. It was all a lie that would have become clear earlier had he not had the war to cover up his false promises.

Just out of curousity would it be illegal for someone in Germany to do say a school project on Hitler for a Biography or something?? just curious as it is for "educational" purposes could you show pictures of Hitler and the Nazis and the SS and all that?

That wouldn't be illegal. Every school book for modern history of course has pictures of Hitler in it, and actually the Third Reich is regarded is an important part of public education, and in theory no German should leave school without learning about that time. It's important to learn about the wrongs of the past in order to prevent them from happening again in the future.

Edit: DemonDeLuxe, you're right about the legality of the first stanzas of the national anthem (and about everything else you said). I really believed it to be illegal, but as I just found out, it isn't any more since 1951.

And, no, he did not essentially do everything he said he would do - just the opposite. He neither built the "1000 years Reich", nor did he weaken Judaism in the world... just the opposite, no? He did NOT defeat communism, he did NOT promote the "aryan race" etc. He did not even succeed in his minor promises, e.g. a car for everyone or jobs for everybody. It was all a lie that would have become clear earlier had he not had the war to cover up his false promises.


Well he DID essentially bring Germany out of the depresion which in turn was one of the reasons why he was popular was because people were so desperate. Volkswagon came out of the time which I believe translates to "the Peoples Car" so he may not of succeded completly on that respect but never the less He did bring the country out of poverty and DID Get much of the population working again. Also he may not have built the "1000 year Reich" but he came pretty damn close. But thats not what I meant I meant about all his political Ideals were all layed out in Mein Kampf.

And I do think he was a genious you can disagree thats your purogative but what was required for him to actually make it to power at all was pure genious on his part. Obvisouly you have read and know all about his coming to power so you would know how much carefull planning and manipulation was required to pull it off. The man was a genious plain and simple. Im not saying he was a "good" man or that he was not "evil" or anything like that.

All history is Biased. You have to take it for what it is worth. If the Nazis had won the war or even agreed to a cease fire then history might well have Known him as Adolf Hitler the Great. History is biased because it is only told by one side usually the Victor or prominent power. Take a look at the Russians. they were part of the "allies" But yet after the war they were the Enemy and you could be put in Jail if you were suspected of being comunist because commmunism was bad. Is this not essentially the same thing the Nazis did? or putting Japanese Canadians in internment camps and siezing all their property is this not the same thing the Nazis did? Obviously they didnt execute them but never the less the principle behind the actions were the same. In Canada boat loads of Jews tried to imigrate here to escape from the Nazis at the begginng of the war and the Canadian Government told them to go somewhere else. Because we didnt want Jews coming here either. Im sure some Americans, Brits, Russians commited some pretty horrible war crimes during the war but since they won those werent war crimes. So like I say History is always written by the victor so take it for whats it worth.

@Doc Tsiolkowsky: Which belt is that? The Femahrn Belt is within peeing distance from the German shore ...

@Doc Tsiolkowsky: Which belt is that? The Femahrn Belt is within peeing distance from the German shore ...

It's the "Little Belt" (Lillebælt) in Denmark. IIRC this is a water strait between Fyn and Jutland. It's not that far from German borders, but definitely Danish. :)

Well he DID essentially bring Germany out of the depresion which in turn was one of the reasons why he was popular was because people were so desperate.

Yep, that's the old myth. In fact, he did nothing like that. What he really did was steering Germany into bancruptcy. That was exactly what I meant that the war covered up - WITHOUT the war, people would have recognized that he had spent way too much for his highways etc.

Volkswagon came out of the time which I believe translates to "the Peoples Car" so he may not of succeded completly on that respect

No ;) In fact, the first VW Beetle was presented as "the KDF car" (KDF = "Kraft durch Freude" = "Power through joy", a quite ingenious concept to keep the workers happy) and people were encouraged to save money for it, 1000 Marks only... well, not one single Beetle saw his civilian owner, instead it was produced as an allround military car. Not really a "complete" success... *g*

but never the less He did bring the country out of poverty

Nope - and the biographs you read should clearly have said so. Hitlers financial policy was outright catastrophic. He didn't care, however, being fully aware of the fact that after a few years there would be war and all normal financial laws would be temprarily out of order. Hitler, as so many dicatators, needed the war to get internal stabilty.

and DID Get much of the population working again.

That's what they say when they talk about "not everything under Hitler was bad". In fact, it was coincidence. The numbers of jobless people were dwindling even before the NSDAP took over, which was mirrored, btw., by the corresponding dwindling numbers of votes fort the Nazi party. Still, he got enough votes, and Hitler enjoyed being at the right place at the right time. With his brilliant sense for marketing, however, he exploited his predecessors' work and had the highways built (the plans were ready before he came to power, but hadn't been realized because of lack of money). The money he used was the money intended for old-age pensions...

Also he may not have built the "1000 year Reich" but he came pretty damn close.

Yep, quite close, if one doesn't look to hard on the missing 988 years... ;) But if you mean the sheer power of mid-war Germany: A lot of countries would be able to pull the same stunt if they had the same degree of ruthlessnes, bluntness and willpower. It's like fire: You can burn very bright for a very short time and get quickly extinguished afterwards, when the moment of surprise is over. Personally, I prefer an everlasting candle...

But thats not what I meant I meant about all his political Ideals were all layed out in Mein Kampf.

Ah, well, yes, at least he tried. Which was possible only because hardly anybody had the nerve to actually read that rubbish, and those who did thought he couldn't possibly be serious. So, in a way, he was able to do many things because people thought noone would seriously try such an absurd way.

Obvisouly you have read and know all about his coming to power so you would know how much carefull planning and manipulation was required to pull it off. The man was a genious plain and simple. Im not saying he was a "good" man or that he was not "evil" or anything like that.

Yes, I've been interested in the topic even back when I was at school, partly because of family connections (one distant uncle was the supreme military commander in Czechoslovakia when his superior Heydrich was killed). But the point is: Quite often there was NOT much planning but more a hazardous va banque gambling. In the beginning, he was lucky (e.g. when he sent troops into the demilitarized Rhine zone) - later, the luck left him, but still he insisted to be right, against all odds. We know where that led in the end.

If the Nazis had won the war or even agreed to a cease fire then history might well have Known him as Adolf Hitler the Great.

You know, that's what many people say over here. But I think this is a result of the war, not primarily of Hitler's genius. A war tends to let people feel more nationalistic, and in the end for most people it was "us" vs. "them", and everything associated with "us" looked brighter than it actually was, especially so, of course, after the breakdown, when even the dark times of the 3rd Reich appeared as "the good old times" tomany. But the man who had millions of people tortured and murdered, who even murdered personally one of his very few close friends, could hardly be called "great" in a different way in that maybe Nero was "great". In the end, in his last hours, he said that "Germany isn't worth to survive, the Germans are too weak, so they shall perish". That's NOT what I want to hear from someone called "great".

Is this not essentially the same thing the Nazis did? or putting Japanese Canadians in internment camps and siezing all their property is this not the same thing the Nazis did? Obviously they didnt execute them but never the less the principle behind the actions were the same.

I don't think so. There's a difference between persecuting people for political reasons (be they right or wrong) and slaughtering them for some pseudo-racist mythical ideology in the hope of actually exterminating them.

Is this not essentially the same thing the Nazis did? or putting Japanese Canadians in internment camps and siezing all their property is this not the same thing the Nazis did? Obviously they didnt execute them but never the less the principle behind the actions were the same.

The principle is not remotely the same. Internment camps for the Japanese were regarded (rightly or wrongly) as a necessary evil that had to be done to win the war. Americans and Canadians didn't like putting people in internment camps, but they felt that the alternative (compromising the war effort) was worse. They made every effort to be as humane as possible to those in the camps. Children were educated, interned citizens were well fed and given medical care. I'm not saying that it was a good decision, just that the decision was made for the principle of winning a war that we could not afford to lose. On the other side, jews were placed in concentration camps for the express, sadistic purpose of wiping out their race, which was regarded as impure or whatever. Nazis did not regard concentration camps as a necessary evil but as a positive way to reach their goal of a racial pure German state. Equating the two is the height of moral relativism; yes, there are holes and problems in the historical record just as many scientific theories are incomplete and problematic. This does not mean that it is legitimate to accept one's own view of history without research and evidence just because commonly accepted history was "written by the winners." An infringement by allied governments on the liberty of their citizens is by no means "the same in principle" as genocide.

Just to add another little tid bit in here. I have read like 5 biographys on Hitler, done several school progects on him. Simply because I find him to be fascinating the whole story is very intersting and i personally think the Man was a genious. Most people can't see past the bad stigma that has been placed on him . And as much bad stuff that he did he did essentially everything that he said he would do.

you think that people have placed a bad stigma on hitler? he placed it on himself.. by, you know, attempting to kill all the jews, amongst other things.. or did you miss that little bit when you were doing your research?

yeah, he was a genius for getting as far as he did.. would have been brilliant if he managed to actually kill them all!! yeahh! :mischief:

Hitler was a big contradiction in many ways. Thats why so many people find him fascinating- 60 years after he topped himself. He was a genius, a monster, a mental wreck, and stupid as well. He was also human.

you think that people have placed a bad stigma on hitler? he placed it on himself.. by, you know, attempting to kill all the jews, amongst other things.. or did you miss that little bit when you were doing your research?

yeah, he was a genius for getting as far as he did.. would have been brilliant if he managed to actually kill them all!! yeahh! :mischief:

Hm, I guess you're a bit unfair towards Chopperhead here. He explictly said that he doesn't approve of Hitler's actions. One can be a genius and act inherently evil at the same time, though. In fact, the term "evil genius" has been around for decades.

I think Zardnaar sums it up nicely when saying:

Hitler was a big contradiction in many ways. [...] He was a genius, a monster, a mental wreck, and stupid as well. He was also human.

I would only like to add that, in those very qualities, Hitler was a kind of mirror / lens of his surrounding.

Also, it's a very good and valid quote, and just because Hitler said it doesn't make it less so.

oh hitler was a very insirpiring leader, i am not pro-nazi or pro-hitler or anything or anyway, just that his leadership skills were outstanding, and had the power speech to influence etc etc, sadly he obvoiusly used this for the worse...

or putting Japanese Canadians in internment camps and siezing all their property is this not the same thing the Nazis did? Obviously they didnt execute them but never the less the principle behind the actions were the same.

Ummmmmm...... No.

well this is definitly an intersting conversation.

anyway about the Japanese they were definitly not treated as humane as possible you make it sound like they were living in nice vacation retreats or something. Innocent Japanese Canadians were stripped of their rights, given special clothing, humiliated, throwen behind barbed wire fences and force to do manual labour. Sound familiar??

Living in interment camps Not all peachy. Many families were forced to live in cramped quarters with ten other families sharing one stove.
many Japanese were placed in tents until there were houses available. One would think that moving from a tent to a house would be a step up, but this was not true. Most houses consisted of panal board with no insulation, rickety walls and maybe a stove. During the harsh cold winters many Japanese put lanterns under their beds to try and keep warm.

The BC government Refused to profide funding for Japanese youth to attend any type of schooling.

An even bigger insult occured to the Canadian born Japanese. Canada sold all of their worldly possesions. In 1943 the Canadian "Custodian of Aliens" liquidated these worldly possesions without the owner's permission. The Custodian of Aliens held auctions for these items. These items would range from farms and to houses, to people's clothing. They were sold quickly and prices were insultingly cheap. The money that was raised from these auctions went to the realtors and the auctioneers; then it went to paying for storage and the handling charges. The Japanese had to pay for their stay at these horrid camps. While under the Geneva Convention prisoners of war (POW) didn't have to pay for their camps. In comparison to what the American Governement paid for their internment camps, Canada paid a quarter of what than the USA did. once again does this sound familiar??

And the decision was not made solely on the basis of winning the war and it was not Nessesay. Not one japanese Canadian that was interned was ever charged.

internments camps came about because of racist attitudes Canadians held towards Japanese Canadian's-many of whom lived in BC. Once the bombing on Pearl Harbour happened racism came to a head. British Columbians started to blame all their troubles and problems on the Japanese. Japanese people were blamed for everything from a bad crop to a flat tire. The scared people of BC cried out, wanting the BC Government to deal with the problem as they saw it-Japanese Canadians. The people of British Columbia wanted to feel safe in their homes again and they wanted Prime Minister Mackenzie King to rid Canada of people of Japanese orign. Sound familiar?

there had always been a hatered of asians in Canada. Asians had to pay some $500 head tax to even enter the country. Then when the whent to work on the Trans Canada Railway they were paid like half of what white people were payed and then were forced to do all the dangerous work and were not profided any safety equipment. Nothing at all. Many thousands of Asians died building that railway and it is said that for every mile of track 4 asians died.

so what Im saying here is that while we may have not gone as far as attempted genocide still the whole situation does sound very familiar to what the Nazis did to the Jews in the early part of the war.



Also about the comment that he was in the right place at the right time. People were desperate and were looking for something, anything to bring them out of it. If Hitler were alive today would he be able to acomplish the same thing? well some would argue no and probably that probably true but If George Bush can be elected and then re-elected the next term anyone can :sad:

um Chopperhead, im going have to deny that event in history along with a few others. Is it illegal to do in Canada? I doubt it. On the otherhand if the Japanese where very involved in the Canadian government, with lobby groups and such It probably would be. Am I right?

um Chopperhead, im going have to deny that event in history along with a few others. Is it illegal to do in Canada? I doubt it. On the otherhand if the Japanese where very involved in the Canadian government, with lobby groups and such It probably would be. Am I right?

Sry man I dont understand what your saying

In my country (Macedonia) is totally legal to publish and sell "Mein Kampf",I think that there was a add on the TV promoting the book,but it sells just for you to read and judge for your self---if you want to be a Nazi you will be with or without the book.Also if you go around and say "Heil Hittler" no one will stop you(it's legal---but not in a sport game,tv,or some celebrations) just the people will look at you strange and you will never be acepted in a large group of friends.Here you can do everything you want just not to bother anyone with it---if you want to be a Nazi,ok be a Nazi(dress like it,act like ti,use simbols) but don't do anything that will hurt someone.
My grandfather fought against the Nazi in the WW2---he was somesort of a major (I still keep his medals) and he never said that Nazi people was wrong or right,he just said:"That is what they chose to be,that is what they feel that they should be and we must never judge them for that is theirs to descide,we can only protect our way of life and hope that our way is better then theirs."

@Mr.No

you must have a very wise grandfather, indeed. While personally, I prefer a *bit* more action against extremists from either side ("no tolerance for intolerance"), what you just quoted would be outright scandalous if said here in Germany.

It's really a problem here: Some (not many, but the few are quite loud) people actually wish back the "Führer", some (actually many more) take the opposite approach and condemn not only Hitler and the Nazis, but Germany as a whole and all it's traditions with it. I guess only time will help to normalize the feelings. Until then, I'm afraid, special "anti-Nazi laws" will be necessary. Sometimes it really gets ridiculous, however. E.g. if you want to sell little plasic models of WW2 tanks, you have to avoid all images of swastikas. The major producers of such models are in Asia and of course do not prduce extra boxes for the German market - so what is done is that they hire some poor people who cross out the swastikas you can see on the side of tanks, uniforms etc. on the cardboard box with a black pen by hand...

What if I raise my hands at a 47 degree angle? Will I go to jail? This type of repression will lead to resentment. I think those laws are racist. Its saying that Germans ARE nazis and we are avoiding nazi behavior by banning it.

Wow when I raise my arm 47degrees I become happy. I want to hug a black guy. Wait a minute, when I raise my arm 45degrees I want to destroy anyone that is genetically inferior. Thank god raising my arm 45degrees is illegal. Otherwise I would get myself in a lot of trouble. But now that I know its illegal I will avoid it and avoid a 4th world war.

"Mein Kampf" is actually out of print, except in the United States. The German state of Bavaria owns the copyright except for the US (Hitler was from Bavaria and upon his death, his possessions fell to that state). That state will sue anyone who tries to publish "Mein Kampf" outside the US.
I cannot remember ever having seen Hitler's book on sale in a German bookstore (I am a German living in the US). I was quite shocked when I walked into bookstores in the US, and saw the book frequently on shelves.
Displaying NAZI symbols for educational/scientific/historic purposes is allowed. The movie "Downfall" which shows the last days of Hitler is full of the symbols and it is a German movie.
The NAZI party (NSDAP) is also illegal in Germany, alongside with the communist party (KPD) btw.

What if I raise my hands at a 47 degree angle? Will I go to jail? This type of repression will lead to resentment. I think those laws are racist. Its saying that Germans ARE nazis and we are avoiding nazi behavior by banning it.

Wow when I raise my arm 47degrees I become happy. I want to hug a black guy. Wait a minute, when I raise my arm 45degrees I want to destroy anyone that is genetically inferior. Thank god raising my arm 45degrees is illegal. Otherwise I would get myself in a lot of trouble. But now that I know its illegal I will avoid it and avoid a 4th world war.

It seems you totally lack any understanding of the situation. Of course no one will "go to jail" just because of raising his right arm. Our §86a is willingly VERY flexible so as to be ABLE to persecute somebody who actually DOES "raise his right arm" IF it is done in a way to propagate national socialism.

Of course there are the likes like you who make fun of just about everything and don't care about how many million people have died a horrible death because of it. Might change one day when you grow up - I hope.

It seems you totally lack any understanding of the situation. Of course no one will "go to jail" just because of raising his right arm. Our §86a is willingly VERY flexible so as to be ABLE to persecute somebody who actually DOES "raise his right arm" IF it is done in a way to propagate national socialism.

Of course there are the likes like you who make fun of just about everything and don't care about how many million people have died a horrible death because of it. Might change one day when you grow up - I hope.

well put :thumbsup:

"Mein Kampf" is actually out of print, except in the United States. The German state of Bavaria owns the copyright except for the US (Hitler was from Bavaria and upon his death, his possessions fell to that state). That state will sue anyone who tries to publish "Mein Kampf" outside the US.
Actually, Hitler was born in Austria :mischief:

In my country (Macedonia) is totally legal to publish and sell "Mein Kampf"...
Um..no. Publishing or printing "Mein Kampf" is not legal ANYWHERE in the world - since that violates copyright laws.
As already mentioned, the Bavarian state as heir to Hitler (he was officially a Bavarian citizen when he did) does not allow any printing runs today.
However, they only found out about the possibility about 15 years ago, and before, many issues were printed.
I bought a fully legal paperback version for 1.90DM in a Geramn bookstore ~1985, with almost zero comments.

The Bavarian copyright claim to the book seems to be contested, e.g they are not acknowledged by the US or UK authorities. Also, they aren't able to enforce it everywhere. The book actually has become a bestseller in Turkey, and Bavaria has not been able to stop that (although they tried).

First Hitler wasnt such a genius like some people say here, he was more medical ill. (One doctor even official said so, after that he had the gun on his desk) The brain for all this worked propoganda was Göpels, who learned to take advantage of Hitlers speech ability. If Hitler had been such a genius then as soon he took over full controle the war had not ended such fast. If Hitler had been a bit more clever he had for example gave Rommel the full controle over the defence in the Normandie, then D-Day had most likely not could succeed, or the V2 Rockets had been directed (after D-Day) to the bridgehead of the Allies instead towards London where they had could have caused much more damage.

Second: About the german anthem, that is actually the old austrian Emperor anthem which german "lend" from us and changed the text a bit.

Uh-oh...

First Hitler wasnt such a genius like some people say here, he was more medical ill. (One doctor even official said so, after that he had the gun on his desk)

If what ONE doctor said would make a difference, then Hitler would have been more or less everything, since more or less everything has been said about him. He certainly was very eccentric, but that alone is not suited to judge hime - you have eccentric dumbasses as well as eccentric geniuses.

The brain for all this worked propoganda was Göpels, who learned to take advantage of Hitlers speech ability.

In fact, Dr. Goebbels "the little doctor" was the intellectual part of the Nazi leaders. However, he revered Hitler in an almost religious sense after having opposed him for a couple of years. Their qualities were quite different; while both were capable of holding flaming speeches, Goebbels took the (kind of) intellectual approach, Hitler stuck to the "Blood and Honor" way. It is simply not true to call Goebbels "the brain". Yes, he HAD brain, but without a leader personality such as Hitler, Goebbels would hardly have left any imprint on history. He was great as a supporter, not as a leader.

If Hitler had been such a genius then as soon he took over full controle the war had not ended such fast.

Erm... it's just the other way round: Had he been more competent in military matters, he would have avoided a long war at all costs, knowing that while German troops could pack quite a punch in a swift, decisive stroke, they simply didn't have the resources to fight a country the size of the USSR or as rich as the USA. In fact, Hitler tried to do exactly that and hoped for an end of the russian episode even in 1941. He should have learned form Napoleon - luckily, he didn't. However, a genius is not necessary equally able on all subjects. One can be a genius in one aspect and have absolutely no clue on others. As far as I know, e.g., Michelangelo wasn't a great composer and is still a genius just because of his narrow niche in art.

If Hitler had been a bit more clever he had for example gave Rommel the full controle over the defence in the Normandie, then D-Day had most likely not could succeed

Woah, impressive! So giving supreme command to one general who sympathiszed with the rebels against Hitler would have been a smart move? Hardly so. Be ye remembered that Rommel was (falsely) accused of being part of the assassination attempt of 1944 and forced to commit suicide.

or the V2 Rockets had been directed (after D-Day) to the bridgehead of the Allies instead towards London where they had could have caused much more damage.

BEHOLD! The mighty V2! Oh,yes... a rocket hardly able to hit a square mile full of industry in London would have been the perfect wonder weapon for on-the-spot attacks against mobile soft targets. You might want to consider again. After all, the V2 was a bloddy hype, nothing else. Ingenious in design, useless as a weapon.

Second: About the german anthem, that is actually the old austrian Emperor anthem which german "lend" from us and changed the text a bit.

It is actually the old GERMAN anthem. When the original hymn was composed in 1797, Franz was emperor of Germany, and the hymn addresses him explicitly as "Franz the emperor". Yes, he was KING of Austria, as well, but that's not the topic of the anthem. What we "lent" was more one Adolf H. from Braunau at the Inn. The hymn would have been the wiser choice.

It seems you totally lack any understanding of the situation. Of course no one will "go to jail" just because of raising his right arm. Our §86a is willingly VERY flexible so as to be ABLE to persecute somebody who actually DOES "raise his right arm" IF it is done in a way to propagate national socialism.

Of course there are the likes like you who make fun of just about everything and don't care about how many million people have died a horrible death because of it. Might change one day when you grow up - I hope.

I respect your opinion but perhaps its you that lacks understanding. How many millions have died with our "democratic" system? How many millions have died in Iraq in the last decade due to our sanctions? national socialism resulted in millions of deaths. Id place my money on more deaths due to our current enlightened system. So what in 50 years we will ban hand shakes? Our current system is even more dangerous than the national socialism. The majority of the population thinks we are spreading freedom and in reality how many need to die for oil?

DemonDeLuxe, so your point is that Hitler himself was a great politician but little else? and that it was Germany and the German people that was ready to be turned into what Nazi Germany became? basically it could have been Hitler but it could have been someone else too that created Nazi Germany?

It's not an unusual point but it's certainly a condemnation of the German people (of course, a more general version of your point might be that every nation was--perhaps even still is--ready and waiting to be shoved into violence, aggressiveness and a degree of evil).....

Well, fanatic nationalism and racism weren't exclusive traits of the German populace at that time. The Germans "just" put both to cruel extremes.

I can't speak for Demon, but I certainly believe that Nazi germany would have been possible without Hitler. Nazi Germany was not the product of some "lunatic" with an ability to impress the masses. It was the product of poverty (due to a worldwide economical crisis), of people's growing belief that the democratic system of their time was unable to solve their problems (reinforced by the fragmention of political groups at that time), of a WW I peace treaty that was perceived as infamous and scandalous (and that was also seen as one of the reasons for the poverty), of nationalist and antisemitic ideas which circled the world at that time, *and* of the personal talents of the Nazi leaders.

Reducing all these factors to "it was just Hitler's personality" would actually be dangerous, as it would make us blind to the danger of resurfacing similar problems.

So, to sum it up, I'm certain that nazi Germany would have been possible without Hitler, and that "Nazi [insert any country here]" would have been possible in countries in a similar situation.

so what happens if you go into a bookstore and try to buy a copy of 'mein kampf'? do they ask you "are you going to be using this for educational purposes?" and you have to say "sure, whatever" before they can sell it to you?Mien Kampf doesnt make people kill people, the people who make mien kampf kill people

The movie "Downfall" which shows the last days of Hitler is full of the symbols and it is a German movie.

A very powerful film and I recommend it to any student of history.

I respect your opinion but perhaps its you that lacks understanding. How many millions have died with our "democratic" system?

Ah, you know, criticizing one approach does not necessarily mean that you find a different approach faultless - it just shows one's preference, it is a relative judgement. I am fully aware that there is an abundunce of bigotry as far as the much-praised democratic system is concerned. And how could it be different? The systems differ, but the people running the systems are the same. It's just that SOME systems allow a better control. None of them allows FULL control. There is a difference between a system that, of course, has it's faults and where wrong things are done, often unintentionally, and a system that is BASED on wrong ideas.

How many millions have died in Iraq in the last decade due to our sanctions?

True. But how many would have died WITHOUT them? It's hard to decide, really. There is no "100% solution" to such matters, and one has to lookat the results as well as on the motives.

national socialism resulted in millions of deaths. Id place my money on more deaths due to our current enlightened system.

That might be true as well. You could follow the very same argumentative line when having a look at the Catholic church and it's damnation of contraceptives - how much poverty and death might THAT have been caused? Again, it's a matter of not only the net result, but the motives. While I, personally, hate the catholic approach to sexuality and find it quite chauvinistic, I cannot help but notice that most people among them WANT to be "good" and just get to the wrong conclusions, which is tragical.

Of course, all evaluation of political systems depends on your own philosophical views. Mine are based primarily on Kant's categoric imperative, and in that system of values there is a huge difference between national socialism which is inherently chauvinistic, xenophobic and opressive, and an - even spoiled - democracy where at least the WILL to do it better is there.

So what in 50 years we will ban hand shakes? Our current system is even more dangerous than the national socialism. The majority of the population thinks we are spreading freedom and in reality how many need to die for oil?

I cannot help but agree here. But is this the fault of democracy as such? Or aren't those to blame those people who recklessly exploit the system's inherent weaknesses? And that's the difference, IMHO: In a totalitarian system and especially in national socialism, death and destruction to people not deemed worthy is part of the plan. In a democracy, it happens IN SPITE OF the plan. However, I am *VERY* aware of the dangers democratic ideas are in nowadays, and we must be *VERY* careful not to find us in a world dominated by huge companies very soon (the world *IS* that way already to a certain extent, but it could be much worse).


DemonDeLuxe, so your point is that Hitler himself was a great politician but little else?

Not quite. Hitler was a genius in exploiting others - an important trait for a politician, but not the only important one. A very important quality of any politician would be far-sightedness, which Hitler totally lacked and replaced it by mythically inspired daydreams. Hitler, too, was ruth- and reckless, qualities which come in handy in the short run, but damage you in the long run since nobody's willing to trust you any more. So, no, he IMHO was no "great" politician. He was an inpired leader for a short period, utterly incapable of slowly and patiently building something to stand the test of time.

and that it was Germany and the German people that was ready to be turned into what Nazi Germany became? basically it could have been Hitler but it could have been someone else too that created Nazi Germany?

Basically, yes. 1930's Germany was a cask of gunpowder, and Hitler was the spark.

It's not an unusual point but it's certainly a condemnation of the German people (of course, a more general version of your point might be that every nation was--perhaps even still is--ready and waiting to be shoved into violence, aggressiveness and a degree of evil).....

It's nothing like condemnation. Actually, I like my country :)
No, I just have a general understanding and sympathy for the people in the 1930s. I mean, the economic crisis had hit the whole world, but no nation harder than Germany. Add to that the psychological devastating effect of the treaty of Versaiiles, and you get an atmosphere that cries out loud for revenge, for satisfaction. Realizing that and utilizing it to further his own goals was the real genius of Hitler. Actually, the world has learned much from the experience: You will hardly ever again see a result of a war comparable to that of 1918, because we know now what can be the consequence if you put shame and a complete feeling of unfairness onto a nation.

I mean, seriously, Hitler did NOT have success because he hated Jews. More the other way round: He was successfull in spite of it. People elected him because he gave them hope, and they were willing to tolerate his more freakish traits which they didn't take too seriously, anyway (AND antisemitsm was no alien concept to many "democratic" nations, either). Und normal circumstances, someone like Hitler wouldn't have a chance. The circumstances in Germany were NOT normal then, however.

The people who produced civilization have a few things to learn about the way businesses should treat customers. Civ 3, 4 and revolution have all been defective upon release and this was deliberate. The intent was to get the product out asap and not waste energy making sure it worked. They were relying upon the misplaced loyalty of their fan base which has steadily built up over the years of civ 1 and 2. The fans would be patient and wait for patches to fix the problems and the civ developers could bank the savings they conned from these people instead of spending the dough necessary to make a working, finished product. I was one of those suckered fans and shined on such treatment because I wanted to play the game more than I wanted to think.

The main reason I took off those rose colored glasses was because of this forum. Or rather, the shoddy way the civ’s makers allow this forum to be run. It’s just an extension of their advertising. Of the different forums here I looked at or posted on, only the civ 3 customization and development forum was well run. The moderation of the other forums is some of the worst I’ve seen and openly plays favorites among the posters. They are also frequently uninformed and are essentially only here to promote the games. Racism and bigotry are tolerated, normal reactions to said racism and bigotry get penalized. Posters who are rude and childish, commonly called fan boys, rack up 1000s of posts writing the same material defending the company line, over and over, year in, year out, while most of those with actually something interesting to say are either driven away by these posters, and moderators, or leave out of sheer boredom and disgust with the dogpiling which the moderators encourage.

It was the poor manner in which this forum is run which tipped the scales of my opinion of the business practices of the people who make the civilization games. I had been willing to put up with partially functional games, but one could say the moderator’s behavior opened up my eyes to the behavior of the company towards its customers as a whole. The moderator’s attitude towards civ’s customers matches that of the makers of the game. Very poor, very unprofessional. And it got me to reevaluate why I continued using their products. I’ve come to the conclusion that by posting on this forum, I was providing free advertising for a product I would never now recommend. Similarly, leaving those posts as is would have the same effect.

It’s really too bad. Civ is a promising concept in the right hands, but what we got is a game still mostly using the primitive code it was developed with more than 15 years ago with “improvements” in play patched in over the years. Rather than spend the energy, time and money on truly improving this game, they spent a fraction of it instead on eye candy and advertising. Even many of the simple to correct flaws in civ 1 are still repeated in civ 4. When civ 4 came out, and now especially with that “revolutions” joke, it was obvious the developers were not interested in advancing this series, just in milking it for as much money for as little effort as they could. Being able to edit the game helps, and is its best feature, but that cant counter the flaws of the programming. Rather than make a real effort at improving the ai, which is so poor, it kills single player interest fairly quickly, the makers chose the cheapskate way out by using programming cheats. Like I wrote, too bad. A game that could have actually amounted to something became just another toy for the kids who have everything already.

But that leaves the floor clear for someone else to take this concept and develop it into something worth playing again.

If what ONE doctor said would make a difference, then Hitler would have been more or less everything, since more or less everything has been said about him. He certainly was very eccentric, but that alone is not suited to judge hime - you have eccentric dumbasses as well as eccentric geniuses.



Erm... it's just the other way round: Had he been more competent in military matters, he would have avoided a long war at all costs, knowing that while German troops could pack quite a punch in a swift, decisive stroke, they simply didn't have the resources to fight a country the size of the USSR or as rich as the USA. In fact, Hitler tried to do exactly that and hoped for an end of the russian episode even in 1941. He should have learned form Napoleon - luckily, he didn't. However, a genius is not necessary equally able on all subjects. One can be a genius in one aspect and have absolutely no clue on others. As far as I know, e.g., Michelangelo wasn't a great composer and is still a genius just because of his narrow niche in art.



Woah, impressive! So giving supreme command to one general who sympathiszed with the rebels against Hitler would have been a smart move? Hardly so. Be ye remembered that Rommel was (falsely) accused of being part of the assassination attempt of 1944 and forced to commit suicide.



BEHOLD! The mighty V2! Oh,yes... a rocket hardly able to hit a square mile full of industry in London would have been the perfect wonder weapon for on-the-spot attacks against mobile soft targets. You might want to consider again. After all, the V2 was a bloddy hype, nothing else. Ingenious in design, useless as a weapon.

No one doctor back in that time, said so because he had the guts to say it after that he had to kill himself, sure no other doctor would than say the same thing.

If you start with this then you can easily say that if he had been more compitent in military matters from the start on, Germany had won the war. It was the most advanced military back in that time, none could keep up with them, it was only because of luck that Germany made so many tactical mistakes, starting by Dunkirchen, that the war ended the way it did. Allies didnt win the war, the Germans lost it.

Yes given Rommel the command had been a smart move as he knew his job, he knew that the allies probably attack at the Normandie, he knew that once the attack starts the Tank division in Paris would have no way to get in time to the beach as the roads will have been blown up. If it had gone after Rommel in just that tank division question than the allies had faced 4 Tank divisions right at the beach.

And yes the V2 rockets had made a better job if it had been directed on the bridgehead. London was a huge distance for them, and so they accuracy was already down to a minimal as soon the started. Then most were easily intercepted and taken of course by simple taping the V2 wings, that was why they failed. The bridgehead however had been much much closer, and there had been no time for the allies to intercept it. So much more rockets had actually hit where they were supposed to be. Try shooting with a Assault Rifle on 400meters and you will hit precisely, try the same on 1400 meters and you will be lucky if you hit at all.

The NAZI party (NSDAP) is also illegal in Germany, alongside with the communist party (KPD) btw.

Serious ?? :mischief:
This is quite interesting ...

Also the posts by DemonDeLuxe on the nazis and Germany were also interesting. Reading that post of your's where you described how hitler had bankrupted Germany and went to war in part to cover this, I am strongly reminded what the current simian White House occupant and his fellow neo-con cronies have been up to and doing to America the last few years.

Thank you :)

However, there might be one misconception here: While the strategy of having a war to distract from inner problems is quite common, Hitler did not start the war to cover any problems. It was more the other way round: Because he knew from day one that he WOULD have a war (in a secret meeting, he informed members of the military staff about his intentions even in the very first years of his rule, when he officially talked about peace at every occasion), he didn't care how much money he spent. It was like signing a contract that dooms you to horrendous plights when you secretly know that tomorrow laws about contracts will be changed totally.

The comparison Hitler-Bush is not totally new, but it isn't very precise, either. The motivations are quite different, indeed. I wouldn't say that Bush is inherently evil - he seems to be more of an inherently incapable dummy in the hands of some highly intelligent bastards.

It was the most advanced military back in that time, none could keep up with them, it was only because of luck that Germany made so many tactical mistakes, starting by Dunkirchen, that the war ended the way it did. Allies didnt win the war, the Germans lost it.

It was because of luck that Hitler rose to power in the first place - and it was unbelievable luck that important politicians absolutely had no clue of his intentions. Hitler could have been stopped dead if the French and British had sent just one single Brigade when Hitler broke the contract of Versailles by marching his troops into the demilitarized Rhineland. They would have had any right to do so - but they did nothing. Hitler, who was fully willing to commit suicide IF they intercepted his va banque game, couldn't believe his luck.

Also, no, losing the war was very simply a matter of time, and the high militaries (and secretly, Hitler himself) were fully aware of this. Germany didn't have the resources to conduct a lengthy war. It excelled in "Blitzkrieg", it had no chance in a war against multiple countries with a lot more of resources, people and overall power. Be reminded that the camapign of 1942 was primarily a fight for much needed oil - a problem that crippled German military decisively.

Concerning Rommel, V2 etc.: Frankly, I'm quite tired of discussions of the style "How Germany could have won the war if it had only done as I think it should have been done." It's fruitless, especially since many of those who indulge in those dicussions have absolutely no expertise on the topic, at least MUCH less than the people actually responsible at the time, so it not very probable to hear something really worth thinking about. No offense, it's just that I don't like that pub talk too much. And I'm actually quite relieved that we did NOT win that war.

Yes given Rommel the command had been a smart move as he knew his job, he knew that the allies probably attack at the Normandie, he knew that once the attack starts the Tank division in Paris would have no way to get in time to the beach as the roads will have been blown up. If it had gone after Rommel in just that tank division question than the allies had faced 4 Tank divisions right at the beach.

Rommel was a tactical genuius but only at offensives, when left in africa to do only defences he began to lose, so it would have been smarter leaving Rommel to command the attack to push the allies back into the water, not defending

Demon, VERY nice arguing on your part and quite sensitive. Lot's of ppl on this forum should take a leaf out of your book.

As for youzr statement that laws concerning nazi symbols etc are necessary, I agree to some extend but I have to relativize it at the same time:

It is very important to deal with the past, but laws against racism can only be one part of preventing something like the 3rd Reich ever happening again. The most important issues in fighting racism and war are social justice, (moral) education and security. Especially #1 and #3 were lacking severely in pre-3rd-Reich Germany imho. This makes for the most fertile soil for concepts like Hitler's. And THAT is the lesson our politicians in germany should have learned a long time ago. Instead they sacrifice one thing after another on the altar called capitalism. Well, not only in germany. I find this a very worrying development on a global scale. And the recent disorders in France show what can be caused by social injustice and a lack of integration.

The NAZI party (NSDAP) is also illegal in Germany, alongside with the communist party (KPD) btw.
Serious ?? :mischief:
This is quite interesting ...

Both parties have had legal re-foundings though. While the National-Socialist party (NSDAP) is illegal, there is the legal "National Party of Germany". While the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) is illegal, there is the legal "German Communist Party" (DKP). Neither of which has any real political power.

Basically, these parties are legal as long as they respect the German constitution. Being Communist is not illegal. Founding a party that doesn't respect the constitution however is.

Basically, these parties are legal as long as they respect the German constitution. Being Communist is not illegal. Founding a party that doesn't respect the constitution however is. As Psyringe stated, it's a basic self-defense mechanism for the democratic system which has been incorporated into our constitution partly because of the failure of the Weimar Republic which didn't have such a protection system. Basically, we have what is called the "free democratic basic order" (freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung) which states the most important things that make up a democratic state (parts of the constitution like the sanctitiy of the human rights, or concepts like universal sufferage and so forth) which no political party is allowed to oppose. If a political party aims to change or abolish any of the concepts that make up this basic order, it can be declared illegal by the supreme court.

So what about the "88" on the turret of the panzer unit?

Has the German Green party yet called for a complete EU-wide ban of Civ 4 because it manipulates children to believe neo-nazism is cool? :mischief:

The people who produced civilization have a few things to learn about the way businesses should treat customers. Civ 3, 4 and revolution have all been defective upon release and this was deliberate. The intent was to get the product out asap and not waste energy making sure it worked. They were relying upon the misplaced loyalty of their fan base which has steadily built up over the years of civ 1 and 2. The fans would be patient and wait for patches to fix the problems and the civ developers could bank the savings they conned from these people instead of spending the dough necessary to make a working, finished product. I was one of those suckered fans and shined on such treatment because I wanted to play the game more than I wanted to think.

The main reason I took off those rose colored glasses was because of this forum. Or rather, the shoddy way the civ’s makers allow this forum to be run. It’s just an extension of their advertising. Of the different forums here I looked at or posted on, only the civ 3 customization and development forum was well run. The moderation of the other forums is some of the worst I’ve seen and openly plays favorites among the posters. They are also frequently uninformed and are essentially only here to promote the games. Racism and bigotry are tolerated, normal reactions to said racism and bigotry get penalized. Posters who are rude and childish, commonly called fan boys, rack up 1000s of posts writing the same material defending the company line, over and over, year in, year out, while most of those with actually something interesting to say are either driven away by these posters, and moderators, or leave out of sheer boredom and disgust with the dogpiling which the moderators encourage.

It was the poor manner in which this forum is run which tipped the scales of my opinion of the business practices of the people who make the civilization games. I had been willing to put up with partially functional games, but one could say the moderator’s behavior opened up my eyes to the behavior of the company towards its customers as a whole. The moderator’s attitude towards civ’s customers matches that of the makers of the game. Very poor, very unprofessional. And it got me to reevaluate why I continued using their products. I’ve come to the conclusion that by posting on this forum, I was providing free advertising for a product I would never now recommend. Similarly, leaving those posts as is would have the same effect.

It’s really too bad. Civ is a promising concept in the right hands, but what we got is a game still mostly using the primitive code it was developed with more than 15 years ago with “improvements” in play patched in over the years. Rather than spend the energy, time and money on truly improving this game, they spent a fraction of it instead on eye candy and advertising. Even many of the simple to correct flaws in civ 1 are still repeated in civ 4. When civ 4 came out, and now especially with that “revolutions” joke, it was obvious the developers were not interested in advancing this series, just in milking it for as much money for as little effort as they could. Being able to edit the game helps, and is its best feature, but that cant counter the flaws of the programming. Rather than make a real effort at improving the ai, which is so poor, it kills single player interest fairly quickly, the makers chose the cheapskate way out by using programming cheats. Like I wrote, too bad. A game that could have actually amounted to something became just another toy for the kids who have everything already.

But that leaves the floor clear for someone else to take this concept and develop it into something worth playing again.

Since people here seem to know...I've always wondered - Is the swastika really illegal to display in Germany and Austria? It's a Hindu symbol after all. I guess I'm making some assumptions about freedom of religion guarantees. Do those guarantees exist there?

@Khyth
The (partly excellent) postings by other people on this thread already give you a pretty good overview of the limits of using Nazi symbols in Germany.
Freedom of religion is, of course, granted by the german basic law. However, this does not mean, that you can just do anything you want under the cover of your personal religion. Freedom of religion ends where it collides with laws that in turn try to protect other basic human rights. And since the swastika is primarily associated with the Nazis in this country and displaying it is (in certain circumstances) considered opposition to the democratic concept of the state, it may be illegal to use. To be honest, though, I doubt that when the relevant laws regarding this were passed, anybody hat the Hindu sun dial symbol in mind ;). It's plain and simple - we have a hell of a lot of experience with the Nazis and their use of the swastika, while at the same time having virtually no hindu minority here which could voice opposition against outlawing the swastika symbol. So the laws regarding the use of the swastika are definitely not supposed to limit the freedom of religion of any Hindu who needs it to practice his or her faith. And if there ever is going to be a larger community (be it Hindus or any other group that is in dire need of a sun dial symbol), I guess the issue would have to be sorted out be further clarifying those laws :).

It's the same.
And it isnt like anything related to the Nazis is illegal over here - just the display of swastikas and stuff like that - you can even buy Hitlers "Mein Kampf", as long as it's for educational purposes only.

It is ridiculous. Even dangerous ideology shall not be banned. Mein Kampf is a worthy book, it shall not be treated any differently from other pulications.

~double post~

@Khyth
Freedom of religion is, of course, granted by the german basic law.but Hitler turned national socialism into a religion, no clue what it was about, but thats what i've found by looking around so it could potentally conflict

freedom of religion doesn't include to propagate anti-democratic ideologies. in terms of national socialism this is illegal

freedom of religion doesn't include the right to propagate anti-democratic ideologies. in terms of national socialism this is illegal

My father said something to me when I was a very young lad that I plan to tell my children one day (if I ever decide to settle down and have some). I had asked him about the nazis, and I remember him telling me: "anybody who says that they (nazis) weren't that bad either doesn't know what they're talking about or is an idiot."

Just a couple of points:

Yes, Japanese Canadians were interned during WWII, but from what I've read they recieved better treatment than Japanese Americans, and both recieved much better treatment than jews in the third reich (you know, because nobody was trying to exterminate them). Although the internment of Japanese Americans and Canadians is a sad chapter in North American history, how can anybody possibly compare it to the holocaust? Even if you forget about the gas chambers and the mass graves, the fact remains that internment camps for Japanese were a political reaction to public hysteria after Pearl Harbour. Hitler on the other hand spent years creating public hysteria so that he could set up concentration camps.

Also, Hitler was a sadistic, xenophobic hate-monger whose mission from the very beginning was to enslave or completely wipe out a large chunk of the world's population, and he came disturbingly close to acheiving his aims. George Bush is a bumbling moron who took the goodwill and sympathy of the global community after Sept. 11th and turned it into resentment and contempt, bankrupted a thriving economy and started the dumbest, most pointless war in American history. His mission is to keep gays from getting married. Please stop comparing the two.

My father said something to me when I was a very young lad that I plan to tell my children one day (if I ever decide to settle down and have some). I had asked him about the nazis, and I remember him telling me: "anybody who says that they (nazis) weren't that bad either doesn't know what they're talking about or is an idiot."

Just a couple of points:

Yes, Japanese Canadians were interned during WWII, but from what I've read they recieved better treatment than Japanese Americans, and both recieved much better treatment than jews in the third reich (you know, because nobody was trying to exterminate them). Although the internment of Japanese Americans and Canadians is a sad chapter in North American history, how can anybody possibly compare it to the holocaust? Even if you forget about the gas chambers and the mass graves, the fact remains that internment camps for Japanese were a political reaction to public hysteria after Pearl Harbour. Hitler on the other hand spent years creating public hysteria so that he could set up concentration camps.

Also, Hitler was a sadistic, xenophobic hate-monger whose mission from the very beginning was to enslave or completely wipe out a large chunk of the world's population, and he came disturbingly close to acheiving his aims. George Bush is a bumbling moron who took the goodwill and sympathy of the global community after Sept. 11th and turned it into resentment and contempt, bankrupted a thriving economy and started the dumbest, most pointless war in American history. His mission is to keep gays from getting married. Please stop comparing the two.

did you even read what I wrote about the Japanese??
but W/E Im not arguing this anymore some people will never be able to see things from a diffrent perspective so Im not even going to bother with this one.

It was very intersting to read this thread, I think i've learnt something and maybe I understand more of what happend(more or less). But I find that last sentence of yours Chopperhead a bit sad, Im not arguing this anymore some people will never be able to see things from a diffrent perspective so Im not even going to bother with this one.

Thanks all, and I would like this discussion to continue, I know so little, but find it so intersting :)

@Khyth
The (partly excellent) postings by other people on this thread already give you a pretty good overview of the limits of using Nazi symbols in Germany.
Freedom of religion is, of course, granted by the german basic law. However, this does not mean, that you can just do anything you want under the cover of your personal religion.
I guess that's what confuses me about it since it's really not a Nazi symbol - it's a Hindu symbol that some of the western world misused and misinterpreted. If you travel to India, you'll see swastikas all over the place as they are auspicious symbols. But I see your point about having too small a minority to have their voices heard. I guess as long as it isn't illegal to possess items with swastikas on it (since a lot of Hindu religious items have swastikas in them in some random places), it's definitely the path of least resistance to let the majority have their way. Kind of a bummer, but it seems like the interpretation isn't likely to return to its real meaning anytime soon.

did you even read what I wrote about the Japanese??
but W/E Im not arguing this anymore some people will never be able to see things from a diffrent perspective so Im not even going to bother with this one.

from your perspective hitler was a genius; hopefully not too many people will be able to see things from *that* perspective.

Yes, Japanese Canadians were interned during WWII, but from what I've read they recieved better treatment than Japanese Americans, and both recieved much better treatment than jews in the third reich (you know, because nobody was trying to exterminate them). Although the internment of Japanese Americans and Canadians is a sad chapter in North American history, how can anybody possibly compare it to the holocaust? Even if you forget about the gas chambers and the mass graves, the fact remains that internment camps for Japanese were a political reaction to public hysteria after Pearl Harbour. Hitler on the other hand spent years creating public hysteria so that he could set up concentration camps.

those who are not willing to compare internment camps with concentration camps are using hitler as an excuse.

those camps take away human rights for individuals. no matter what's the reasoning behind those camps, let it be racism or a "political reaction", the intend is the same: "collect" minorities, imprisom them for beloning to said minority and cut them off from constitunal rights.

each state that wants to be a constitutional state but makes use of internment camps is in no way better than the national socialistic germany.

another example are the us american internment camps used to collect all those supicious arabian looking people. they could be terrorist, so just deny human rights to them, put them on an island off the coast (huzza, constitution not violated) and do whatever is needed to squeeze a plea of guilt out of them.

such behaviour is fashism, national socialism and nazi.
if you shy to allow such comparision, you're using hitler as an excuse. cause hitler is the "uber evil", no one will ever be as evil as him again, so we could not be nazis...

@Shigga

(*blushing*)

It is very important to deal with the past, but laws against racism can only be one part of preventing something like the 3rd Reich ever happening again. The most important issues in fighting racism and war are social justice, (moral) education and security. Especially #1 and #3 were lacking severely in pre-3rd-Reich Germany imho. This makes for the most fertile soil for concepts like Hitler's. And THAT is the lesson our politicians in germany should have learned a long time ago. Instead they sacrifice one thing after another on the altar called capitalism. Well, not only in germany. I find this a very worrying development on a global scale. And the recent disorders in France show what can be caused by social injustice and a lack of integration.

So true. But how to make it better? I'm fully convinced that power leads to corruption, no matter what. The problem, as I see it, is NOT that our political system get worse - we have quite a bunch of measures to control those in charge. Granted, these measures can't be 100% effective, but 80% is ok. The real problem seems to be that ever so slowly there arises a parallel system of power in the form of multinational mega-trusts. Our politicians are AFRAID of big companies. They do everything to get these to invest in their regions, they help, they pay... and after getting all that help the company says: "Ah, tough luck, work is cheaper in the neighbourhood" and moves, leaving behind a demolished infrastraucture for which basically the nation payed. Or take taxes: Did you know that Daimler-Chrysler's tax reports are NOT checked in Germany? The government simply gets a note stating how much taxes Daimler-Chrysler has to pay (according to D-C's books!) and that's about it. Every single small worker is checked regularly, but one of the biggest companies in the country is NOT. I guess the same is true for a couple more companies.

We must consider this: While our gouvernments might have the power officially, they are restricted to one country each. As opposed to that, mega-trusts reside in many countries and shift their forces (and their money) as they see fit, basically avoiding control.

Hmmm a small question
If an dictatorship is chosen and supported via an full scale democratic election(everyone vote by free will)
will this government be accepted as democratic?
will it suffer the sanctions the "non democratic" countryes suffer?
i mean, this government was elected to act this way....

It is ridiculous. Even dangerous ideology shall not be banned. Mein Kampf is a worthy book, it shall not be treated any differently from other pulications.

It is a "worthy" book? May I ask you whether you have actually read it? This badly written, boring conglomerate of lies, hatred and perverted ideology?

Well, personnally, I think that it SHOULD be freely available - in a commented form. Forbidden books always have the intruiging aura of taboo and appear interesting just because of that. Books nobody knows but everybody talks of get an amount of attention which typically is not justified by their contents, which is VERY true for "Mein Kampf", which is said to be "the most rarely read bestseller of all time". It's like with the "Necronomicon": The book doesn't even exist, but since there's the aura of unspeakable evil and secret lore about it, many people think it might contain deep truths.

but Hitler turned national socialism into a religion, no clue what it was about, but thats what i've found by looking around so it could potentally conflict

That depends on what one understands by the term "religion". Yes, Hitler tried to borrow religious elements from several real religions, from mythology and old traditions, mixed it up and made into something LIKE a religion. Not a true one, however, as can be proved by the fact there was the church of "German Christians" which rooted in Christianity, laced with national socialist decorum. It was not founded by Hitler, but was just an attempt to somehow integrate Christianity into national socialism. Seeing that, one can only say that while NS had religious elements, but did not really attempt to be a religion as such, otherwise it wouldn't have been quite common for hardcore national socialists to be a member in said "Church of German Christians".

National socialism is more a philosophy than a religion, and it borrowed freely everything that could appeal to the masses. It was, if you want, a REPLACEMENT for religion, something they tried lateron in the German Democratic Republic, as well, when they took Christian traditions, renamed them as celebrated communist "achievements".


I guess that's what confuses me about it since it's really not a Nazi symbol - it's a Hindu symbol that some of the western world misused and misinterpreted. If you travel to India, you'll see swastikas all over the place as they are auspicious symbols. But I see your point about having too small a minority to have their voices heard. I guess as long as it isn't illegal to possess items with swastikas on it (since a lot of Hindu religious items have swastikas in them in some random places), it's definitely the path of least resistance to let the majority have their way.

Ah, no, it's not that the swastika as such is illegal - our lawyers are well aware of the fact that it is much older than national socialism (I mean, Hitler borrowed / stole wherever he could, think of that aesthetically quite appealing "Hitler salute" which he took from the Romans). However, if you see a swastika in Germany, chances are roughly 99.9% that it IS meant in national socialist meaning. Where this is clearly not the case, no harm is done and no persecution is the result. IIRC we even have a couple of swastikas etched into some churches - not as vandalism, but as part of the original artwork hundreds of years ago.

So, the basic line of reasoning is: Whenever you use a symbol that *WAS* used by the nazis, you better have a sound explanation for it. If so, nothing happens. If not, you're in trouble. Obviously, a Hindu priest wouldn't have problems to convince a lawyer of his true intentions, and since the people who are national socialists AND Hindu are quite rare indeed, there doesn't seem to be a problem here ;)

from your perspective hitler was a genius; hopefully not too many people will be able to see things from *that* perspective.

I was talking about the Japanese situation. thordk somes it up nicely.

Hmmm a small question
If an dictatorship is chosen and supported via an full scale democratic election(everyone vote by free will)
will this government be accepted as democratic?
will it suffer the sanctions the "non democratic" countryes suffer?
i mean, this government was elected to act this way....

It's really quite a BIG question and one that has moved thinkers for a long time. In Germany, the result was, as was explained, the theory of the "free democratic basic order". No gouvernment is allowed to act against it or to change it (there are so called "eternal paragraphs" in it which do not allow any change by any majority - theoretically, of course). And one part of this order is, of course, a certain amount of tolerance towards minorities. You know the term "dictatorship of the majority"? It basically means that even a democratic majority is not allowed to do anything it likes with minorities. So, while the decision to, say, kill all catholics might be "democratic" by numbers (catholics are roughly 32% in Germany, which IS a minority), it is not in spirit and would be considered a harsh violation of said order.

Btw. Hitler was not elected to become a dictator, not at all. First, his party was elected, but not with a majority. It was just the strongest party in German parliament. Hitler then managed to convince president Hindenburg to allow him to become chancellor. Not more. This was far form "absolute power". When Hindenburg died, Hitler tricked the people in allowing to become president, as well, so uniting both positions (which were intended to keep each other in check). The catastrophe happened not in one major "We want Hitler as our dictator!" election, but in many, many small steps. People might even have potested against Hitler becoming BOTH, chancellor and president (and a few in fact did), but the first months of Hitler as a chancellor seemed to be so successful that most people thought: "Oh, why not? He did well as a chancellor, he could be even better as president, too". At that time, NO jews went into gas chambers, no soldiers died at the front etc. What evil existed already happened in secrecy or in such a subtle way most people weren't aware of it or deemed it a payable price for the overall improvements.

those who are not willing to compare internment camps with concentration camps are using hitler as an excuse.

those camps take away human rights for individuals. no matter what's the reasoning behind those camps, let it be racism or a "political reaction", the intend is the same: "collect" minorities, imprisom them for beloning to said minority and cut them off from constitunal rights.

each state that wants to be a constitutional state but makes use of internment camps is in no way better than the national socialistic germany.

another example are the us american internment camps used to collect all those supicious arabian looking people. they could be terrorist, so just deny human rights to them, put them on an island off the coast (huzza, constitution not violated) and do whatever is needed to squeeze a plea of guilt out of them.

such behaviour is fashism, national socialism and nazi.
if you shy to allow such comparision, you're using hitler as an excuse. cause hitler is the "uber evil", no one will ever be as evil as him again, so we could not be nazis...

you want to compare internment camps with concentration camps? sure, why not?

they were totally different.

concentration camps were DESIGNED to murder people.. and that they did - MILLIONS of people.

can you say the same about internment camps?

no? then shut the **** up.

DemonDeLuxe, I'm not willing to get into a discussion of putting Hitler in today's day (mostly because it's boring actually and just gives all sides an opportunity to be disgusted with the other side) but I must say that you're entering the realm of that great element of illogic: the slippery slope. The slippery slope argument is always ridiculous---it can be used at all times for all situations and seems to be saying SOMETHING but it never proves its point---it just confuses people because it sounds clever. Probably best, mate, to say what you mean or stick with historical analysis or don't say anything. you wouldn't want to seem self-righteous or insulting (especially because people are quite aware of your points and consider them everyday---nothing new being said)

Can it be that by calling Demon's arguments a "slippery slope" you are saying something that may sound clever, but despite saying SOMETHING you never prove your point? Thereby making use of an argument that can be used at all times for all situations? I'm confused.

*scnr* ;)

Can it be that by calling Demon's arguments a "slippery slope" you are saying something that may sound clever, but despite saying SOMETHING you never prove your point? Thereby making use of an argument that can be used at all times for all situations? I'm confused.

*scnr* ;)

Ah, well, thank you, that was exactly what came up my mind when I read his post where he basically says nothing at all but accuses me of saying nothing (new) at all in general whithout any precise words WHAT, in Heaven's name, he might refer to.


@yatusk

If you have nothing to say, please feel free to do so.


you want to compare internment camps with concentration camps? sure, why not?

they were totally different.

concentration camps were DESIGNED to murder people.. and that they did - MILLIONS of people.

Not quite. There were different qualities of concentration camps in the Third Reich: The "real" concentration camps (KZ), e.g. Dachau, and the later "elimination camps" like Auschwitz, Maydanek etc. The latter were built for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible efficiently. The debate concerning which camps belonged to what type is still going on here, but it seems that the latter type was established only in the conquered territories and not in German mainland in order to hide the truth from the German people.

So I guess it's not quite wrong to compare internment camps with concentration camps of the first type which primarily served the purpose of prisons.

The people who produced civilization have a few things to learn about the way businesses should treat customers. Civ 3, 4 and revolution have all been defective upon release and this was deliberate. The intent was to get the product out asap and not waste energy making sure it worked. They were relying upon the misplaced loyalty of their fan base which has steadily built up over the years of civ 1 and 2. The fans would be patient and wait for patches to fix the problems and the civ developers could bank the savings they conned from these people instead of spending the dough necessary to make a working, finished product. I was one of those suckered fans and shined on such treatment because I wanted to play the game more than I wanted to think.

The main reason I took off those rose colored glasses was because of this forum. Or rather, the shoddy way the civ’s makers allow this forum to be run. It’s just an extension of their advertising. Of the different forums here I looked at or posted on, only the civ 3 customization and development forum was well run. The moderation of the other forums is some of the worst I’ve seen and openly plays favorites among the posters. They are also frequently uninformed and are essentially only here to promote the games. Racism and bigotry are tolerated, normal reactions to said racism and bigotry get penalized. Posters who are rude and childish, commonly called fan boys, rack up 1000s of posts writing the same material defending the company line, over and over, year in, year out, while most of those with actually something interesting to say are either driven away by these posters, and moderators, or leave out of sheer boredom and disgust with the dogpiling which the moderators encourage.

It was the poor manner in which this forum is run which tipped the scales of my opinion of the business practices of the people who make the civilization games. I had been willing to put up with partially functional games, but one could say the moderator’s behavior opened up my eyes to the behavior of the company towards its customers as a whole. The moderator’s attitude towards civ’s customers matches that of the makers of the game. Very poor, very unprofessional. And it got me to reevaluate why I continued using their products. I’ve come to the conclusion that by posting on this forum, I was providing free advertising for a product I would never now recommend. Similarly, leaving those posts as is would have the same effect.

It’s really too bad. Civ is a promising concept in the right hands, but what we got is a game still mostly using the primitive code it was developed with more than 15 years ago with “improvements” in play patched in over the years. Rather than spend the energy, time and money on truly improving this game, they spent a fraction of it instead on eye candy and advertising. Even many of the simple to correct flaws in civ 1 are still repeated in civ 4. When civ 4 came out, and now especially with that “revolutions” joke, it was obvious the developers were not interested in advancing this series, just in milking it for as much money for as little effort as they could. Being able to edit the game helps, and is its best feature, but that cant counter the flaws of the programming. Rather than make a real effort at improving the ai, which is so poor, it kills single player interest fairly quickly, the makers chose the cheapskate way out by using programming cheats. Like I wrote, too bad. A game that could have actually amounted to something became just another toy for the kids who have everything already.

But that leaves the floor clear for someone else to take this concept and develop it into something worth playing again.

The article below is an excellently written piece comparing the economics of nazi Germany and fascist Italy with the recent neo-liberal government and economic trends in the USA and Canada.

Excellent article indeed. It stresses the economical aspect a bit too much IMHO (one could write a very similar article about the role of the military in fascist Germany), but, of course, that is to be expected in an economics magazine.

Frankly, the man is right. We *DO* have these tendencies today - we have them in ALL "western" countries, with the USA being just the spearpoint. And, yes, even without looking at the wars which are conducted, we can feel the results, feel the change: Just look at what rights are diminished in the name of "protecting freedom and democracy". It doesn't take a very bright head to realize that all those "security measures" the gouvernments enforce actually hurt freedom and democracy much more than a dozen of 9/11s could. The weird thing is: People *DO* see the process. They know. They feel. They see it coming. And nothing happens to avoid it.

One little example: A while ago, our gouvernment decided that lorries using our highways needed to pay a fee. Although systems where you pay a general fee have been around for decades in several countries, the gouvernment wanted a fee based on the amount of kilometres a lorry actually uses the highway. To supervise this, an expensive and technically demanding system was established that controls traffic and checks whether a lorry has the right badge etc. Very early there were those who said: "Just you wait, one day not far from now they will use the very same system to control what PRIVATE cars go where - not only because of fees but to gather data about individual behaviour". Of course, the politicians said: "Oh, no, we don't do that, that would endanger privacy, it's just because of those lorries, you know."

Guess what idea a couple of days ago came up... on an initiative of the police, as they say?

It's all about fear, uncertainty and doubt - and the knowledge that "they" control and supervise EVERYTHING. And exactly THAT is a fascist trait.

The people who produced civilization have a few things to learn about the way businesses should treat customers. Civ 3, 4 and revolution have all been defective upon release and this was deliberate. The intent was to get the product out asap and not waste energy making sure it worked. They were relying upon the misplaced loyalty of their fan base which has steadily built up over the years of civ 1 and 2. The fans would be patient and wait for patches to fix the problems and the civ developers could bank the savings they conned from these people instead of spending the dough necessary to make a working, finished product. I was one of those suckered fans and shined on such treatment because I wanted to play the game more than I wanted to think.

The main reason I took off those rose colored glasses was because of this forum. Or rather, the shoddy way the civ’s makers allow this forum to be run. It’s just an extension of their advertising. Of the different forums here I looked at or posted on, only the civ 3 customization and development forum was well run. The moderation of the other forums is some of the worst I’ve seen and openly plays favorites among the posters. They are also frequently uninformed and are essentially only here to promote the games. Racism and bigotry are tolerated, normal reactions to said racism and bigotry get penalized. Posters who are rude and childish, commonly called fan boys, rack up 1000s of posts writing the same material defending the company line, over and over, year in, year out, while most of those with actually something interesting to say are either driven away by these posters, and moderators, or leave out of sheer boredom and disgust with the dogpiling which the moderators encourage.

It was the poor manner in which this forum is run which tipped the scales of my opinion of the business practices of the people who make the civilization games. I had been willing to put up with partially functional games, but one could say the moderator’s behavior opened up my eyes to the behavior of the company towards its customers as a whole. The moderator’s attitude towards civ’s customers matches that of the makers of the game. Very poor, very unprofessional. And it got me to reevaluate why I continued using their products. I’ve come to the conclusion that by posting on this forum, I was providing free advertising for a product I would never now recommend. Similarly, leaving those posts as is would have the same effect.

It’s really too bad. Civ is a promising concept in the right hands, but what we got is a game still mostly using the primitive code it was developed with more than 15 years ago with “improvements” in play patched in over the years. Rather than spend the energy, time and money on truly improving this game, they spent a fraction of it instead on eye candy and advertising. Even many of the simple to correct flaws in civ 1 are still repeated in civ 4. When civ 4 came out, and now especially with that “revolutions” joke, it was obvious the developers were not interested in advancing this series, just in milking it for as much money for as little effort as they could. Being able to edit the game helps, and is its best feature, but that cant counter the flaws of the programming. Rather than make a real effort at improving the ai, which is so poor, it kills single player interest fairly quickly, the makers chose the cheapskate way out by using programming cheats. Like I wrote, too bad. A game that could have actually amounted to something became just another toy for the kids who have everything already.

But that leaves the floor clear for someone else to take this concept and develop it into something worth playing again.

you want to compare internment camps with concentration camps? sure, why not?

they were totally different.

concentration camps were DESIGNED to murder people.. and that they did - MILLIONS of people.

can you say the same about internment camps?

no? then shut the **** up.


ok well I thought I was done with this thread but not now. lol you are the kinda of single minded, tunnel visioned person that I was talking about.
we are having an intellegent conversation about this and you come in telling people to shut the **** up. :rolleyes: I think you should shut the **** up and go flame in someone elses thread.

warpus, Chopperhead - warned, language.

you want to compare internment camps with concentration camps? sure, why not?

they were totally different.

concentration camps were DESIGNED to murder people.. and that they did - MILLIONS of people.

can you say the same about internment camps?

no? then shut the **** up.

people get murdered every single day. "modern" nations strife into wars to murder people. i don't want to discuss thoses wars, maybe they are a necessary maybe they're not.

interning people and cutting them off from their human rights is the greater evil. it's not ok to kill people, but that's something that's kind of human nature.
to humiliate people is not. and if a state says it's a constitutional state and CONTINUES to humiliate human rights, this is as worse as what the nazis did in the third reich.

if you cover them up because they're not cleary saying that they're nazis, you open the ways for new fashism and national socialism. ignorance and not wanting to see the truth is what allowed hitler to grab the leadership of germany for such a long time.


maybe this is hard to understand as long as you see murdering people as the greatest of all evils.
i count crimes as rapture or neglect of fiduciary duty higher than murder. cause those are crimes with the intend to humiliate human beings.

interning people and cutting them off from their human rights is the greater evil. it's not ok to kill people, but that's something that's kind of human nature.

Interesting point of view. While I assume that the majority of people would argue against you here, personally I think you might have a point there. Death is, in my own view, not necessarily the ultimate evil - if you are dead, at least you aren't suffering (well, it depends on what you believe in, but as an agnostic, for me death means "game over" and nothing thereafter).

However, one must not forget two important aspects:

a) While death can, in fact, be the more merciful alternative, it is irrevocable. Since no one knows the future, no one can say what you take away from someone you kill. With internment, torture and the like, you surely damage a person, but at least there is the chance of an "afterwards" the person might enjoy. This is, in fact, immeasurable and one of the major reasons why most civilised countries don't have a death penalty anymore (with one most notable exception... I can barely withstand the temptation to do some pun around the word "civilised"...).

b) You have to take family and friends into account. He who kills, kills hope as well. Any other action leaves at least hope. Kill someone, and you spread desperation. Take away human rights - and somehow the people WILL survive and even have moments of joy. Even the people in the middle ages who were mostly slaves and slave-alikes enjoyed life. Man is breathtakingly flexible and can adapt to the most bizarre conditions, even to a life without rights, and nevertheless enjoy life enough so as to want to STAY alive.

As I said, I agree to an extent from a philosophical point of view. Reality, however, teaches a different story: You have WAY more people who accept a life in misery (misery they accept in order to barely stay alive) than you have people committing suicide. Quite obviously, these people value life as such higher than certain rights.

As a final word: I deem it very hard indeed to judge what is "more evil". Beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter much. It's like a flame you hold your hand in: You do not really care if it is 800 or 1200 degrees hot, do you?

Ah, no, it's not that the swastika as such is illegal - our lawyers are well aware of the fact that it is much older than national socialism (I mean, Hitler borrowed / stole wherever he could, think of that aesthetically quite appealing "Hitler salute" which he took from the Romans). However, if you see a swastika in Germany, chances are roughly 99.9% that it IS meant in national socialist meaning. Where this is clearly not the case, no harm is done and no persecution is the result. IIRC we even have a couple of swastikas etched into some churches - not as vandalism, but as part of the original artwork hundreds of years ago.

So, the basic line of reasoning is: Whenever you use a symbol that *WAS* used by the nazis, you better have a sound explanation for it. If so, nothing happens. If not, you're in trouble. Obviously, a Hindu priest wouldn't have problems to convince a lawyer of his true intentions, and since the people who are nationa