this thread is not a copy of this thread

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=189901

I voted no, because Hitler was a knobtard and doesn't deserve recognition. However, if they introduced "minor civs" who exist as a single city-state, he might make an interesting villain to destroy.

No, Germany already has enough leaders in the game. Otherwise, I personally would have no complaints, although I respect the reasons why he shouldn't be included.

It is just a game. It is fun to have such an influencial figure in it to fill the Agg/Cha spot. I think most civ fans would not mind. No one will become violent or crazsy or turn Nazi because Hitler is in a strategy game.

Yes, but I am fine adding the polished mod myself as opposed to having him in there per the retail version.

Gah. Can we stop the Hitler threads? Seems like there are two or three on the first page every single day.

Gah. Can we stop the Hitler threads? Seems like there are two or three on the first page every single day.

We get loads, but when Churchill and Stalin are both in the game, they are inevitable.

Title is irrelevant -- just sounded funny. :king:

Alexander the Great and Attila the Hun were two of the most destructive forces in the history of humanity, but they are remembered very differently. Napoleon was reviled throughout Europe, but now we just teach our kids that he conquered a bunch of stuff, and leave it a that. Hitler got his ideas for exterminating the Jews from United States leaders who systematically gathered, displaced and murdered Native Americans. Will history always remember him as evil incarnate? I'd say the chances are fifty-fifty. Either way, somone should throw him in a mod and see how people actually react. I predict they'd laugh the first time he sowed up, then never think of it again.

We already have F'ing Stalin in the game (which boggles my mind). I hardly consider a psychopathic dictator who killed millions upon millions of his own people to be a great leader.

He also suffered from paranoia.

Stalin is just as bad as Hitler. I don't want either in the game.

When I am playing, I ALWAYS attack Stalin as soon as I can... preferably with Nukes.

Also, comparing Attila or Alexander the Great to either Hitler or Stalin is absurd. The scale they were on was completely different.

Not only did neither Atilla nor Alexander make lampshades or soap from people, neither hid in a bunker during battle. Bad analogies.

And, people whose initial reaction to Hitler is laughter probably need to be monitored closely.

Umm, i vote no. The poster who said Stalin shouldn't be in the game either was right on. The only explanation for his inclusion is the west European bias of the civ community. Forget about whether they were "good leaders" or not. These men were criminals whose victims are still alive. Maybe you were a victim. Maybe one of your family members was murdered thanks to their policies. Think about it.

On another thread someone said it boiled down to a marketing issue. Maybe Firaxis had moral reasons, but if they didn't it would definitely not be wise from a marketing angle to include Hitler. Give it up, people! Use a mod.

I vote yes, just because he is one of the most influential people which history had and would deserve a place among the greatest in the game, anyway he wasn't a good ruler and Germany had a lot of better leaders so i wouldn't miss him.
If Firaxis would plan anyway to introduce a scenario of WWII without him, it would be just ludicrous.

Didn't vote.

If the assumption was that each civ only gets three leaders maximum then I'd vote no. Bismarck, Frederick and Barbarossa.

I think whoever brings up Stalin on a Hitler thread should be pimp-smacked. Enough of this discussion already. DrKodos has it right on, but Stalin also didn't make soap or lampshades out of his murdered countrymen. He was a cruel and harsh dictator just like we've had throughout history, but unlike Hitler, didn't march throughout an entire continent slaughtering anyone who didn't match up with his "ideal human form". So yes, there is a difference. Numbers don't show intent, and that's where the true evil lies IMO. No more about Stalin please.

Back on topic, I voted no because Hitler is a downright offensive figure in our times. Perhaps that will change in the future, but as of now, there is no way I would condone such a move. That and you can just download a mod or make one yourself. Why is everyone so hung up on having him in the retail game?

I actually had to do a bit of soul-searching here, and at first I thought I was indifferent on the matter (not 'yes' and not 'no'). But the more I thought about it, the more I felt that it would not be okay to have Hitler in the game. It's just wrong on several levels...

1) He was not a great leader of Germany. Instead, he managed to bring Germany to the brink of total destruction in 6 years of war. I don't think that constitutes a great leader.
2) Morally, it would just be wrong. This man was responsible for the death of millions of people, the leader of a morally corrupt regime that sanctioned the attempted extermination of Jews, Slavs, disabled people and others they deemed unwanted.
3) The potential trouble that Firaxis would get in for including Hitler in the game. Do we really want them embroiled in legal trouble and being unable to sell the game in Germany because of the laws there? I think we'd prefer it if Firaxis could continue to concentrate on making Civ 5 and expansion packs and patches :)

Much of the same applies to Stalin, in my opinion. Arguably, Stalin could be called a "great leader", because he industrialized the Soviet Union. But if you look at the prize that his people paid, his status of great leader become questionable. Like Hitler, he was responsible for the death of millions, of his own people. In my view, Peter the Great would have been a better choice.

General Failure

Because history is done also by hitler!I don't think Gengis Khan,Napoleon Alexander, Stalin were so much different.

but Stalin also didn't make soap or lampshades out of his murdered countrymen. He was a cruel and harsh dictator just like we've had throughout history, but unlike Hitler, didn't march throughout an entire continent slaughtering anyone who didn't match up with his "ideal human form". So yes, there is a difference. Numbers don't show intent, and that's where the true evil lies IMO. No more about Stalin please.

I believe Stalin intended to kill or inflict suffering on those who opposed him. But ethnic cleansing is more reviled in a world where free peoples have to live side-by-side with totalitarian societies in the name of peace. Think about it. When Saddam killed his own people, it's okay. When he gassed the Kurds, international outrage.

Anyway, I would laugh if I saw a Hilter leaderhead pop up too. I think he has a comical face, and all the documentaries and movies on him don't help dispel that notion. His deeds, though, are nothing to laugh about, and I suspect as students of history (as they ought to be), the developers in Firaxis couldn't bring themselves to include someone so famously evil. Public opinion does influence individuals' opinions and decision-making. Some people think Genghis Khan and Stalin were great leaders, but nobody except neo-Nazis and fools admire Hitler in any comprehensive way. Let's leave it at that and stop arguing over this.

Because history is done also by hitler!I don't think Gengis Khan,Napoleon Alexander, Stalin were so much different.

Except that they WERE very much different...apart maybe from Stalin.
None of those you mentioned sought to exterminate an entire group of the world's population. Stalin murdered many of his own people, for real or imagined threats to his person or regime. The rest were conquerors, but none used organized mass murder on such a large scale and for such an evil purpose.

General Failure

this thread is not a copy of this thread

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=189901

indeed...
so?

Including him could generate legal issues for Firaxis in Europe.

So leave him out.

Personally if I had to suggest Hitler's traits, it would be charismatic and industrious.

At the time of his reign, Hitler had the highest level of support amongst German voters. The effectiveness of the german invasion was also due in large part to the focus and strength of the German factories pumping out stuff for the war effort. It was because of Hitler that the German unique building is the assembly plant.

Personally if I had to suggest Hitler's traits, it would be charismatic and industrious.

At the time of his reign, Hitler had the highest level of support amongst German voters. The effectiveness of the german invasion was also due in large part to the focus and strength of the German factories pumping out stuff for the war effort. It was because of Hitler that the German unique building is the assembly plant.
This is true, however, in the game, the trait Industrious only gives you better production with cheaper forges/factories. The wonder bonus would make no sense for Hitler since his society only produced a Great Army! ;) The AGG simply makes more sense since he ran over all of Western Europe and much of Northern Africa. If that isn't aggressive, I don't know what is! Plus the AGG trait makes more sense for someone like Hitler, because you get the bonus hammers for Barracks (faster, more promoted units), and they start with a strength bonus (better trained troops). Like you said, he pumped out troops and stuff for the war effort so quickly, well, they were also well trained. Just my two sense :D

Stalin was a great leader for Russia. Russia grew from a agricultreal society to a industrial power in less then 30 years

Who gives a **** the price Russia had to pay - the long-term benifits outweigh the short ones - at least Stalin fixed a future problem of overpopulation. Hitler did nothing for Germany - so he shoulden't be in. Stalin left Russia a better nation.

Personally if I had to suggest Hitler's traits, it would be charismatic and industrious.

At the time of his reign, Hitler had the highest level of support amongst German voters. The effectiveness of the german invasion was also due in large part to the focus and strength of the German factories pumping out stuff for the war effort. It was because of Hitler that the German unique building is the assembly plant.
not poeple know this but before the war england supported him
:(

I think as a non-playable leader in a WWII mod, it would be ok. I couldn't see ever playing him in typical game of Civ IV. It just seems absurd and offensive.

Who gives a **** the price Russia had to pay -


I think the people who actually paid the price would...

Stalin left Russia a better nation.

"Better" is a very relative term.

Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime, with a number of recent books suggesting a probable figure of somewhere between 15 to 20 million. Adding 6-8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a figure of between 15 and 17 million victims.

Some "great leader".

While in Civ you can do this sort of thing, be brutal to end up in better position later on in the game, in real life...I feel there is no excuse for this.

General Failure

In a mod, maybe. In the core game, nope. Moral issues mostly.

Double nope if it is ever the reason the game manages to get banned in parts of Europe. I want more Civ games down the years and wider markets help make that possible.

Except that they WERE very much different...apart maybe from Stalin.
None of those you mentioned sought to exterminate an entire group of the world's population. Stalin murdered many of his own people, for real or imagined threats to his person or regime. The rest were conquerors, but none used organized mass murder on such a large scale and for such an evil purpose.

General Failure

I agree with this but what counts is that thousand or million of people died during these conquests whatever was the reason.What i argue is that Nazism has been the worst thing humanity had to face but in this game no leader (except ghandi) was in a form or another "bloodthirsty".
So for me there wouldn't be a moral reason, perhaps he can be excluded just because what he did is fresh also today in europeans and americans mind.
And for economic reason (german market is big)

I agree with this but what counts is that thousand or million of people died during these conquests whatever was the reason.What i argue is that Nazism has been the worst thing humanity had to face but in this game no leader (except ghandi) was in a form or another "bloodthirsty".
So for me there wouldn't be a moral reason, perhaps he can be excluded just because what he did is fresh also today in europeans and americans mind.
And for economic reason (german market is big)

Agreed. Many empires have fought wars for expansion, wealth, glory, power or what not. Many leaders in Civ were conquerors and have blood on their hands.
But none of them have committed the heinous crimes that the Nazis have committed. They did not seek the total and utter eradication of a certain group of people. There is a great difference between conquering another country, or conquering another country and starting to deport and systematically kill some or all of its population, performing "medical" experiments on them and such atrocities.

There, for me, is the moral reason. Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar or Napoleon have much blood on their hands, but their motives for war were arguably more "noble" than those of Hitler. It's still not right to invade another country, but I think I'd much rather have lived under Roman rule than under Nazi rule, simply because the Romans on the whole were far more tolerant.

I hope you see why I have moral objections to seeing Hitler in the game.

General Failure

General Failure:
Some "great leader".

There is a difference between a great humanitarian and a great leader. I'm not oging to say that Stalin was a great leader but Russia - as a political entity - benefited greatly from his rule. That's reason enough for him to be in the game in my book.

Germany does have too many leaders...

to many followers too

I think it would be proper to have Hitler in a wwII scenario. But I wonder why we even need to have these leaders be the same in the CIV game? The geography doesn't match earth, why are they bent on matching people? Why not some sort of roll your own leader. Pick the appearance, traits, name, UU, UB, etc and go. Same with the AI. When you play now and run into a civ, you already know how they are going to play, what UU to expect, etc.

Anyway, I would laugh if I saw a Hilter leaderhead pop up too. I think he has a comical face, and all the documentaries and movies on him don't help dispel that notion. His deeds, though, are nothing to laugh about

This reminds me of a certain contemporary leader...

I voted "Yes", but with an implicit condition:
All faces, mimics and speeches from Hitler (in Civ), are all direct references to the master-piece "The Dictator" by Charlie Chaplin, so then we would be able to have a lighter smile on our face and if we think about Hitler as Chaplin, we can even think about getting friendly with this leader!...
It would also avoid Firaxis / Take 2 to be sued by all american Jewish from Crime Apology...

OT: There was a 6-episode sitcom made in the UK, where Hitler moves in to a new house. His next door neighbours are Jews, and most of the jokes involve the Jews trying to hide the fact that they're Jews, and Hitler becoming suspicious. Needless to say, it was never aired...

Hello? You guys keep writing that Hitler is the only one who tried to eliminate a whole group of people. THAT'S WHAT WE DID TO THE NATIVE AMERICANS. That's where Hitler got his inspiration. Is this just to banal to comment on?

Including Hitler whould exclude the game from being sold in Germany ans possibly Austria.

Apparently the Germans are one of the more P.C. based gaming countries in Europe (rather then consoles).

Therefore why alienate one of the larger markets in Europe

Not a great leader... didn't do much for Germany. So no.

I vote yes.
If there are in-game such leaders as Ghengis Khan, Mao Ze Dong, Stalin, he will just fit well among them.
Though I wouldn't make any evaluations were they great or their nations benefit from their deeds. In my oppinion they all were bloodthirsty monsters and paranoidal maniacs, but important ones. Thats all.

I voted no.

Maybe in another 20 years it will be acceptable, but there are still too many people out there who remember WW2.

I voted yes I mean he is right up there with Napolean,Alexander and other's as the greatest military leaders ever. I mean he almost took over the world he definatly should be in the game.

I can't believe that so many of you guys blindly ignore that Hitler is responsible for a huge genocide! That alone should have all of you have a very bad taste in your mouth for voting yes on having him in the game!
And just 'cause Firaxis put Stalin and Mao in the game won't make it more reasonable to include Hitler too!

Why do you say that having Stalin and Mao in game doesnt justify letting Hitler in? In fact they killed even more people than Adolph.
I would even say, that most of those Civ 4 leaders were resposible genocides of different size, but for me - numbers doesnt matter, as life ... is uncountable.

Kill one - you are a murderer.
Kill few - you are a monster
kill millions - you are a hero.

Isnt it sad?

I can find nothing wrong with Bismarck and Frederick representing German so Hitler is not needed. Just like the nation Isreal (as well any other leader or nation) any mod can included Hitler if they want.

Why do you say that having Stalin and Mao in game doesnt justify letting Hitler in? Maybe due to the fact Germany was divided in half after Hitler lose. Would you consider an leader great (even if he was a warmonger) if it resulted in your nation being divided in half?

To Smidlee:
You are right about qualifying the greatness of leader by results of his deeds - thats why I stated in my first post that I cannot judge if they (I mean Hitler, Ghengis Khan, Stalin, Mao, Napoleon) were great or not - I find they were just important. I suppose their countries lose more on their megalomania, than benefitted. Germany, China, Russia - they all paid terrible price and many generations had to work hard to toss off effects of one person historical decisions. Especially Mao and Stalin - their role was almost identical as Hitler's, and results very similar. But in the same time it is not right to simply overlook their importance.
I completely agree with you about Bismarck and Frederick - they were the true builders of Germany's power. But in the game, Russia also had two leaders already, both better than Stalin. Yet he was included in expansion pack.
Then I can ask what criteria should we take into consideretion when choosing game leader : true greatness or flavour and importance? I am trying to be consequent, because I have no reason to be fan of Hitler or Stalin (they are one of mine most disliked historical persons in fact).

IIRC A few years ago ABC reports that many Russians see Stalin as a good ruler. I don't know why but maybe it's because he help save Russia from being conquered by Hitler. I doubt many Germans today feels the same about Hitler. (I could be wrong) I agree with you I'm not a fan of either.

I voted 'NO' because mass-murderers are already well represented in the leaders chosen by Firaxis.

Yes, if only for the irony of being a Jewish Hitler:p
That being said, I doubt it'll happen...

Why do you say that having Stalin and Mao in game doesnt justify letting Hitler in? In fact they killed even more people than Adolph.
I would even say, that most of those Civ 4 leaders were resposible genocides of different size, but for me - numbers doesnt matter, as life ... is uncountable.

Kill one - you are a murderer.
Kill few - you are a monster
kill millions - you are a hero.

Isnt it sad?

I state that Hitler should not be included for several reasons: His image is, and will forever be, associated with a huge genocide. I know the same is true for Stalin and Mao... but because Firaxis already made the mistake to include those two leaders, they won't make it right by making another wrong (ie. including Hitler).
To compare: You find out your neighbour has stolen a your TV, does that make it ok for you to steal someone elses TV also ??

No to Hitler. Not only was he a mass murderer, but a loser. Unlike Stalin and Communist Russia, Germany was defeated in WWII. I dont know enough about Mao to speak of him.

Why do you say that having Stalin and Mao in game doesnt justify letting Hitler in? In fact they killed even more people than Adolph.
I would even say, that most of those Civ 4 leaders were resposible genocides of different size, but for me - numbers doesnt matter, as life ... is uncountable.

Kill one - you are a murderer.
Kill few - you are a monster
kill millions - you are a hero.

Isnt it sad?
Oh God, not another one. I love people who count tyrany by numbers. "Well, since Stalin killed x amount more, he's just as bad...", why not completely overlook the fact that Hitler rolled over the entire contiguous Western European landmass eradicating it of non-Aryans using gas chambers, ovens, torture, starvation, and slavery.

I've said it before on these threads and I'll say it again, it is in the intent where the true evil can be seen, not just in the numbers.

Oh God, not another one. I love people who count tyrany by numbers. "Well, since Stalin killed x amount more, he's just as bad...", why not completely overlook the fact that Hitler rolled over the entire contiguous Western European landmass eradicating it of non-Aryans using gas chambers, ovens, torture, starvation, and slavery.

I've said it before on these threads and I'll say it again, it is in the intent where the true evil can be seen, not just in the numbers.

As opposed to leaders that eradicate people without any bias whatsoever?

Face the facts, people...Hitler is history. By putting his likeness into a game, it will only offend those that are easily offended. But, those that are offended by Hitler's likeness in a game are also going to be offended by Hitler's likeness in a textbook. Which should say something about the people that are getting offended.

I respect Firaxis's choice to not include Hitler in regard to product marketing. Plainly, their markets would be more limited if they did include him. But all of you people cry-baby-ing about how Hitler killed a lot of people is a really sorry argument. Yes, he did some horrible things. But neither intentionally including him or intentionally removing him from the game will not change the past.

As opposed to leaders that eradicate people without any bias whatsoever? ... But all of you people cry-baby-ing about how Hitler killed a lot of people is a really sorry argument...
Leaders have never erradicated people with no reason. Read up on those leaders, they always had an agenda. Whether it is paranoid-schizofrenia (Stalin), or power grabs (Spanish Inquisition), there is an agenda of some sort.

Cry-baby-ing about how Hitler killed a lot of people is a sorry argument? Wow. You will be one of those people blind and ignorant enough to allow the next Hitler to rise up. If the human race has learned anything about history it is that it will repeat itself. To say we are "cry-baby-ing" about genocide is really ignorant, man. Hitler is not the only to commit genocide, but he is one of the only leaders in history to have taken over so many countries while enacting genocide. The fact that Hitler's actions went unchecked until he invaded Poland shows us that the rest of the world failed to prevent his actions through appeasment and that makes this particular bout of genocide all the worse.

Leaders have never erradicated people with no reason. Read up on those leaders, they always had an agenda. Whether it is paranoid-schizofrenia (Stalin), or power grabs (Spanish Inquisition), there is an agenda of some sort.

Cry-baby-ing about how Hitler killed a lot of people is a sorry argument? Wow. You will be one of those people blind and ignorant enough to allow the next Hitler to rise up. If the human race has learned anything about history it is that it will repeat itself. To say we are "cry-baby-ing" about genocide is really ignorant, man. Hitler is not the only to commit genocide, but he is one of the only leaders in history to have taken over so many countries while enacting genocide. The fact that Hitler's actions went unchecked until he invaded Poland shows us that the rest of the world failed to prevent his actions through appeasment and that makes this particular bout of genocide all the worse.

No, I'm saying that whining about it now doesn't change the course of history. And I'm sorry to say, but yes...it doesn't make for a strong argument for keeping Hitler out of Civ.

And I disagree with you: I'm not one to be blind to history. I don't discount the severity of Hitler's genocide. What I discount is arguing that his deeds are more wrong than another "bad" leaders deeds, to the extent that Hitler needs to be banned from the game.

I would say that it acutally is MORE DANGEROUS to leave him out of things like Civ, movies, documentaries, etc., in an effort to "forget-it-all-away." Because then, several generations down, he will have completely disappeared, and then the danger is more emminent for history to repeat itself.

To not include Hitler in Civ is kinda like saying: "We're including all of these other historical leaders, some evil and tyrannical alike, except the very one that we're afraid to make mention of." It's almost like it's enough to put a smile on his ghastly visage that we are too afraid of him, even in death, to move on.

Your argument (from what I understand), is that "power grabs" and "paranoid-schizofrenia" are justifiable for killing a bunch of people, and hence, it's okay to include them in the game. I'm saying that argument is flawed. Regardless of who was killed, how they were killed, and under whatever motivations...it's all EQUALLY BAD.

The ONLY good argument for Hitler to not be included in Civ is that they could have possibly missed some major markets if they did.

Perhaps my last post lacked in the sensitivity department, and for that I apologize. But there is nothing that we can do now about the Holocaust to make anything better, except to not forget or ignore it and Hitler's reign (as, understandably, Firaxis HAS chosen to do in regard to the Hitler's reign part).

No matter what it is incredible bad taste to even consider to include such b*st*rds as Hitler in the game.... it's already way bad enough they included Stalin and Mao!

No, I'm saying that whining about it now doesn't change the course of history. And I'm sorry to say, but yes...it doesn't make for a strong argument for keeping Hitler out of Civ.

And I disagree with you: I'm not one to be blind to history. I don't discount the severity of Hitler's genocide. What I discount is arguing that his deeds are more wrong than another "bad" leaders deeds, to the extent that Hitler needs to be banned from the game.

I would say that it acutally is MORE DANGEROUS to leave him out of things like Civ, movies, documentaries, etc., in an effort to "forget-it-all-away." Because then, several generations down, he will have completely disappeared, and then the danger is more emminent for history to repeat itself.

To not include Hitler in Civ is kinda like saying: "We're including all of these other historical leaders, some evil and tyrannical alike, except the very one that we're afraid to make mention of." It's almost like it's enough to put a smile on his ghastly visage that we are too afraid of him, even in death, to move on.

Your argument (from what I understand), is that "power grabs" and "paranoid-schizofrenia" are justifiable for killing a bunch of people, and hence, it's okay to include them in the game. I'm saying that argument is flawed. Regardless of who was killed, how they were killed, and under whatever motivations...it's all EQUALLY BAD.

The ONLY good argument for Hitler to not be included in Civ is that they could have possibly missed some major markets if they did.

Perhaps my last post lacked in the sensitivity department, and for that I apologize. But there is nothing that we can do now about the Holocaust to make anything better, except to not forget or ignore it and Hitler's reign (as, understandably, Firaxis HAS chosen to do in regard to the Hitler's reign part).
Ah yes! Agreed to all the above. About the lack of sensitivity in your other post, that is where my defensiveness came from... sorry! I agree with all your points, however, and agree that perhaps inclusion in games like civ is a better idea than exclusion for the fact of keeping what happened fresh in our minds to prevent from happening again.

Ah yes! Agreed to all the above. About the lack of sensitivity in your other post, that is where my defensiveness came from... sorry! I agree with all your points, however, and agree that perhaps inclusion in games like civ is a better idea than exclusion for the fact of keeping what happened fresh in our minds to prevent from happening again.

Yeah, no worries. I certainly wasn't trying to make light of, or pick on, what happened historically. The Holocaust is certainly mourn-worthy. My only point was that the people that died to Hitler are no more special or extra mourn-worthy than those that died to the hands of any other tyrant. That was all I was trying to say. "Cry-baby-ing" was just a lot less tactful way of saying the same thing...my bad! :blush:

That's why Civ is so moddable. You can have your Hitler, and eat him too. :eek: Firaxis didn't have to put him in for their own reasons, but you CAN still have him.

Where's the 'I don't care' option? :rolleyes:

It's just a game, and I'd like an Agg/Cha leader. And if Firaxis can come up with somebody else filling that job, I'll take him.

Amazing how people get worked up over pixels. :rolleyes:

Yes, if only for the irony of being a Jewish Hitler

That's pretty messed up, but also utterly hilarious. I allready giggle when I see a Jewish Saladin. :D :lol: :D

Firaxis have had some rules on choosing leaders: some are national heroes, legendary generals, or just good managers that pushed their countries into golden age, or onto way of spectacular development and expansion .
However, there is a whole serie of contomporary leaders form WWII times. Having all these leaders included, even if they wasn't greatest leaders of their countries, alongside with all-eras mass-murderers, paranoids and tyrants, and declining only Hitler's with "Oh God, he is sooo evil, we cant let him in" commentary, is just a political corectness, or saying it simple - hypocrisy.
Isnt Civilization a WAR game, where players send virtual units for certain death, massively kill virtual defenders, raze cities, wiping whole civs from the face of Earth?
Well, if somebody don't mind to play a role of virtual tyrant, why should he or she oppose against including in game a real historical character, one of the many who has blood on their hands???
If anyone want to clear Civ away of characters guilty of innocent deaths, who would remain then? I think only Churchill and Roosvelt, though Churchill was involved into Boer campaign.

To say the truth, I wouldn't play Hitler if he was in game anyway. Though I would chase him and throw to knees every game I would met his virtual alter ego.

This whole discussion is getting really old. How many threads have we had on this topic? 30? 40? 50? 100?

Theres nothing to add to the discussion that someone hasnt said before.

I can't argue with claims that Hitler was the most evil person in history. Not because I'm sure he was the worst, but because I'm confident he was up there. If we want to make moral judgments (and I'm OK with that) history is full of arguably evil people. Some of them are in this game. Hitler is horrible for a number of reasons, including the genocide? Take a closer look at Ghenghis Khan or Mehmed II. Hitler was evil because he killed so many people so arbitrarily? Take a look at his contemporaries, Mao and Stalin, each of whom probably killed more people by the numbers than Hitler. Hitler can't be there because of what he did to his victims? What do you think Montezuma did to his? (By the way, the sacrificial altar is really offensive, if we care about being politically correct.)
One of the other arguments against Hitler is that he was a shorttime tyrant whose longterm importance is insignificant, much like Atilla or Alaric. But I have to disagree with that, too. As much as I despise Hitler's civilization, the scope of his empire during its short history and it's impact on the future of civilization is remarkable. It's certainly more significant than other failed empire builders, like Hannibal or Montezuma. And if not for the maniacal traits, his shortlived empire would be particularly analgous to Napoleon's.
But here's an idea, if we want to have some modicum of decency to the game, why not include people like Hitler (and Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, and Mehmed, maybe Saddam if they add a Babylon at some point, Pol Pot if they add Khmer) and make them AI only. I don't really want to play as Hitler. When I play as Mao, I always change the name to Sun Yatsen. When I play as FDR, to Reagan :) But I sure do want to play a game where I can beat up on Hitler and his panzers.

I would say yes, and Rex just above me made most of the points I was about to, although I had one other.

Yeah, lots of people are saying the things about the numbers he killed and so on, but what I think a lot of people miss (understandably, seeing as the genoside is quite a bit more obvious) is the years before the war, when he was first comeing to power.

Germany was in shambles, money was so worthless people would be takeing their days wages home in a wheelbarrow and useing the money to burn for heating or use as toilet paper because each note was worth far less than a penny. Germany was crippled in its military too, the treaty of versialles gave it a tiny army with no tanks, planes and a somewhat less than sufficient navy for defending itself, let alone attacking.

Hitler comes along, managed to get into power and fixed all that. From what I can gather it was quite a lot like what FDR did, he managed to talk himself into absolute power and in a short amount of time turned Germany from a third world country back into a proper nation.

Of course, thats where his methods seperate from FDRs, useing his secret police and other methods to create Hitlers Germany.

Evil? Definately, but few leaders in history have managed to pick up a country from that state and so quickly turn it back into the industrial nation with the fighting force that did so much damage.



Still, if it will cause legal problems for the games (I don't know much about the laws in Germany concerning Hitler) then I'll just have to settle for a mod :p

Isnt Civilization a WAR game,

No, Civilization is a civilization building game. More often than not, building a civ requires you to go to war though.

Evil? Definately, but few leaders in history have managed to pick up a country from that state and so quickly turn it back into the industrial nation with the fighting force that did so much damage.

Then have the industrial nation utterly defeated shortly after...

Because history is done also by hitler!I don't think Gengis Khan,Napoleon Alexander, Stalin were so much different.

Napoleon wasn't that bad. He emancipated serfs and Jews and was responsible for an admirable, equitable law book called Code Napoléon. Code Napoléon promoted personal and economical freedom and exerted a huge influence on legislation in much of Europe and South America long after Napoleon was gone. He was not a very nice man, but certainly not to be compared to Hitler, Mao or Stalin - or Genghis Khan, for that matter.

Öjevind

i voted yes because they had Mao Zedong and Stalin in the game and they both killed dozens of millions, so why not hitler?

oh and napoleon was cool

i voted yes because they had Mao Zedong and Stalin in the game and they both killed dozens of millions, so why not hitler?

Because at the end of their rule, their country wasnt utterly devastated and was much more powerful then before they ruled. At the end of Hitler's reign the country was destroyed, generations of people lost, a race (Jews) devastated, the country splintered into four parts governed by foreign powers...Germany was far far worse off after Hitler then before Hitler, and thats saying something.


Now, if I had a dollar for every thread about Hitler, I could retire.

Because at the end of their rule, their country wasnt utterly devastated

Have you ever been to Russia or China? Have you seen how does ordinary people life look there?
I live in Eastern Europe and perfectly know what does "communism" really mean.
I can assure you, that if there were no Stalin, Russia could be a lot more developed and people there could live much better. Moreover Stalin and Mao, Hitler alike, also were killing the whole ethnic groups.
I don't want to be a Hitler's advocate, but I simply dont' understand the allergy on Hitler that some people obviously have, while worshipping other mass-murderers in the same time.

Eskel, I think you will find that there are plenty of people who don't want Hitler, Stalin or Mao in the game in the first place... and I am really stunned by how many people think that just 'cause one thing has been done wrong (adding Stalin and Mao) it is ok to do another wrong thing (adding Hitler)...
Btw, Russia and China both weren't that rich prior to the communist take-over.
Tzarist Russia had a very small incredibly rich upper class and many, many impoverished peasants prior to the revolution in 1917!
China, while once having been a very wealthy country, had declined substantially during the Manchu dynasty just prior to the short Chinese republic declared by Sun Yat Sen... the decline was further added on to by civil war and Japanese occupation.

Napoleon wasn't that bad. He emancipated serfs and Jews and was responsible for an admirable, equitable law book called Code Napoléon. Code Napoléon promoted personal and economical freedom and exerted a huge influence on legislation in much of Europe and South America long after Napoleon was gone. He was not a very nice man, but certainly not to be compared to Hitler, Mao or Stalin - or Genghis Khan, for that matter.


Actually Napoleon was nice man, he didn't even executed his enemies in France, and that was on of the reasons why Napoleon fails. And Napoleon didn't star many wars, France was attacked several times when Napoleon was general or First Consul. I think Austria declared war 4 times during Napoleon time, and lost every war. Napoleon used those wars to conquer land.

All Europe was against France after french revolution. They thinked France was too powerful, and they didn't like Napoleon who wasn't rojal. Not easy time for Napoleon or France...

China was actually left in a worse state after Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. But I can't say the Communist regime, created by Mao in the first place, had done a worse job than the KMT could have. You could argue that Communist rule was inevitable even without Mao, though.

but I simply dont' understand the allergy on Hitler that some people obviously have, while worshipping other mass-murderers in the same time.

Who is worshipping? You are overstating the position and being silly. No one is worshipping Mao or Josef Stalin. What they are doing is RATIONALIZING their inclusion.

There is a major and distinct difference.

Actually Napoleon was nice man, he didn't even executed his enemies in France, and that was on of the reasons why Napoleon fails. And Napoleon didn't star many wars, France was attacked several times when Napoleon was general or First Consul. I think Austria declared war 4 times during Napoleon time, and lost every war. Napoleon used those wars to conquer land.

All Europe was against France after french revolution. They thinked France was too powerful, and they didn't like Napoleon who wasn't rojal. Not easy time for Napoleon or France...

Henh? It was France that started the wars. Also, Napoleon had quite a few people executed or assassinated. The Duc d'Enghien, for example. One can also think of the duplicitous way he invited Toussaint L'Ouverture (the leader of the Haitian struggle for freedom) to negotiations and then simply threw him in jail. I said that Napoleon wasn't that bad (compared to Stalin and his ilk), not that he and the French of the time, with their aggressive wars to conquer all Europe, were doing something really nice.

Eskel, I think you will find that there are plenty of people who don't want Hitler, Stalin or Mao in the game in the first place... and I am really stunned by how many people think that just 'cause one thing has been done wrong (adding Stalin and Mao) it is ok to do another wrong thing (adding Hitler)...
Btw, Russia and China both weren't that rich prior to the communist take-over.
Tzarist Russia had a very small incredibly rich upper class and many, many impoverished peasants prior to the revolution in 1917!
China, while once having been a very wealthy country, had declined substantially during the Manchu dynasty just prior to the short Chinese republic declared by Sun Yat Sen... the decline was further added on to by civil war and Japanese occupation.

I agree that Stalin and Mao shold probably not be in the game either. Bloodstained leaders further back (Genghis Khan and so on) were children of their time and their cultures. But why include mass murderers from the 20th century? I still think Hitler was the worst of the three, but I'd gladly see Mao exchanged for one of the great Han emperors, for example. Or why not the formidable Lady Wu? (T'ang dynasty, 8th century, IIRC.) As for Stalin, he wasn't in the vanilla version of Civ IV and I am baffled that they then decided to include him. To give some gamers more cool war leaders to play with, I suppose.

And as you say, both China and Russia were a complete shambles even *before* the Communists took over. Anyway, let's move on. Hitler won't be included in Civ, and those who desperately want him can go create a mod including him. Whatever.

Who is worshipping?

I read here at least few posts, how good leader e.g. Stalin was.
How Russia benefitted from his rule, and hadn't lost at least.

I suppose (and hope) all these thesis are just an effect of lack of knowledge in this particular matter. My country suffered heavily from both Hitler and Stalin, thats why I cant stand so many peple here overlook guilts of Uncle Joe.
I guess, this is because they still remeber their grandfathers fighting nazis, while they had no such experience with soviets. That automatically makes them think he was ok. I can say one thing - no, he wasn't ok.

I guess, this is because they still remeber their grandfathers fighting nazis, while they had no such experience with soviets. That automatically makes them think he was ok. I can say one thing - no, he wasn't ok.

That is most likely the reason Hitler is not in, but Stalin is. Stalin fought the Nazis with America and England, Hitler was the Nazis.

You cant compare Hitler to Stalin or Mao, because they didnt tried to conquer the world, and cleanse it from "inferior" races, and failed.

All 3 things together make Hitler a pretty bad pick for a leader.

Taking name recognition route, putting Hitler in isnt wise as well, because its a bad publicity, and offensive. Germany and USA sales would be heavily affected.

I don't really care whether someone would include Hitler or not, but I do care if you give the right info or not.
Most people are absolutely right when they say that Hitler was a terrible villain who would only upset some players when you would include this man. It may have been sixty years already, but lots of people (especially in Europe) have grown up with stories of their parents or grandparents of the evil Nazis oppressing them for six long years.

Stalin was indeed also a political criminal (just look at how many people he killed), but there are lots of leaders in the history of the world who did terrible things. To the Romans everything Non-Roman was Barbarian and needed to be captured. If they couldn't capture the city or if the region wasn't worth capturing they'd pour salt on the land so nothing would grow there for years.

Many in this topic have said that Hitler did not know how to manage his empire. While everyone suffered from the economic crisis in the 1930's he was able to build up one of the largest army's in the world with the most advanced weaponry of that era. As for the rest of the economy, it was blooming inside Germany.

Finally, when writing an autobiography, leaders write down their victories and leave out their failures. Lots of mistakes were made in WWII, but for Hitler it always came very close to victory, while for allied forces it always came very close to failure.

-know your enemies-

Did you guys miss the sticky? ;)

Did you guys miss the sticky? ;)

This thread was here before the sticky. ;)

I am sad this thread is pretty biased due to civ society here being overwhelmingly British/American. As being from eastern part of Europe (Estonia, namely) myself, I do support Eskel's arguments - and I do believe that bias in this thread may indeed be because of little and one-sided information.

While weighing deeds and nature of Hitler, I would like to remind the following: those who were victorious, wrote history (read: tweaked where necessary). Naturally there is nor has been no-one to speak for Hitler. On the contrary: in some countries of Europe history in this part has been canonized to the extent that world has not seen since Galilei - with sole purpose of demonizing Third Reich as much as possible. Any revisionist approach to holocaust is crime in both Austria and Germany. What springs into mind when you think of this - especially if you happen to know that photographs of victims of Dresden firestorm have widely been presented as photographs of holocaust victims? And that is just one random example...

There is no way to advocate genocide. Period. But showing Hitler as some peerless arch-evil of entire history simply because of being responsible for one is just ... neither neutral nor very knowledgeable. Especially Americans should hereby remember long-gone native peoples of their land ... and not allowing Jewish refugees into USA during early 40s because of.../danger - sharp learning curve ahead/ ... racial-based immigration quotes might also be worth of mentioning in said context.

Bottom line: If we have Stalin, Mao, Roosevelt, and Churchill included, it calls out for Hitler to sort of relive WWII properly. If not, I see no reason why any of these were added in the first place. Two first ones were probably worse villains than he and two latter could probably find someone else as a suitable replacement...

I was wondering this same thing few days ago.
Hitler had great speaking skills and leadership overall, even when his goal was evil.
Civ is about What could have happen, so I really think he should be here.

Yeekim
If we have Stalin, Mao, Roosevelt, and Churchill included, it calls out for Hitler to sort of relive WWII properly. If not, I see no reason why any of these were added in the first place.
They did something constructive to their land. Hitler did not. I see here quite a difference. Whats next, Jack the Ripper as a leader or what.

Endzz
Civ is about What could have happen
Yes, what would happen if you or me were leaders and conquered the world. Quite interesting to discuss. But we didnt, just like Hitler. Therefore it makes little sense to include him or us in the next or current civ game only because he got a known name. Many other ppl do as well.