Ever wonder why Stalin made it into CivIV and Hitler didn't? Stalin was a great leader that's why!

Stalin did 2 primary things to Russia:

A) In less then 30 years he turned Russia from a agriculterial society to an industrial powerhouse - Russia would be near ruin if not for him modernizing Russia

B) He fixed the problem of overpopulation in Russia - if Stalin didn't purge out these peasents and curropt officals - Russia would be so overpopulated and more people would be starving to death today.

Hitler killed many people too BUT:
Germany was not better off after Hitler died, unlike with Stalin, Hitler almost brought Germany to the brink of destruction.

Sure, the Soviet Union was struggleing in the short-term during the 5 Year Plans and Great Purges - but the long-term benifits outweigh the short ones.

B) He fixed the problem of overpopulation in Russia - if Stalin didn't purge out these peasents and curropt officals - Russia would be so overpopulated and more people would be starving to death today.
:rotfl:

I'm sorry but overpopulation problem? :lol:

B) He fixed the problem of overpopulation in Russia - if Stalin didn't purge out these peasents and curropt officals - Russia would be so overpopulated and more people would be starving to death today.


This is just so wrong on so many levels that it is hard to get my mind around it. So you are saying that in order to "fix" overpopulation, it's okay to just deport and kill people?

China is struggling with overpopulation. Should the Chinese government just round up peasants and shoot them? Or why stop there? If the cities get a bit crowded, just round up people in them and deport them to some remote area and leave them to their own devices. That would solve that problem, wouldn't it?

There's just no way to know what would have happened if Stalin hadn't been there. Maybe people in Russia would have been starving to death, but maybe not. But saying that Stalin was a great leader, because he killed millions...that's just sick!

General Failure

This is just so wrong on so many levels that it is hard to get my mind around it. So you are saying that in order to "fix" overpopulation, it's okay to just deport and kill people?

China is struggling with overpopulation. Should the Chinese government just round up peasants and shoot them? Or why stop there? If the cities get a bit crowded, just round up people in them and deport them to some remote area and leave them to their own devices. That would solve that problem, wouldn't it?

There's just no way to know what would have happened if Stalin hadn't been there. Maybe people in Russia would have been starving to death, but maybe not. But saying that Stalin was a great leader, because he killed millions...that's just sick!

General Failure
My god, I'm not saying its right to kill people - BUT I'm trying to say that unintenilly Stalin did benifit Russia in the long run. I'm not saying he's good for killing people - did I say Hitler was good? No I didn't, but Stalin DID modernize Russia.

Man some people are ignorent.

shoudl have included both they both murder thousands if not millions but they both had good points... the way hitler got rid of unemployment or the way stalin got russia through the german assualt and then they both have really bad points ......... so y include one if u dont the other both bad people..

My god, I'm not saying its right to kill people - BUT I'm trying to say that unintenilly Stalin did benifit Russia in the long run. I'm not saying he's good for killing people - did I say Hitler was good? No I didn't, but Stalin DID modernize Russia.

Man some people are ignorent.

If he did that unintentionally, how does that make him a great leader? Sounds like the opposite of a great leader to me, if the long term benefit happens without his intention.

No, you didn't say Hitler was good, but you said that Stalin did a good thing by killing millions, because it helped his country, even if that was unintentional.

Before you call me ignorant, I suggest you pick up a history book and read up on Stalin and his regime. Pay particular attention to the effects of his policy. Yes, he industrialized Russia. (By the way...it should be Soviet Union). But in doing so, he crippled the countries agriculture, he purged all experienced officers from his army, making it very uneffective. His policy caused massive famines, killing many people. He moved the population of entire regions to create his collective agriculture, which failed miserably.

If you believe Stalin's rethoric that the officials being purged, were corrupt, you really have no idea about what happened in the Soviet Union during the purges. The Soviet Union was also not overpopulated when Stalin was in power.

General Failure

I just posted this in the Hitler poll thread.

There is a big difference between a great humanitarian and a great leader. Russia - as a political entity - benefited greatly from Stalin's rule. That's reason enough for him to be in the game in my book.

The ONLY reason that Hitler is not in this game is because of the complaints and lawsuits that Firaxis would have to deal with. Look at how many people are indirectly complaining about him now, and he hasn't even been added...yet.

Hitler will never make it due to it being too political. Stalin didn't gt as bad a rep, becuase he was not beaten by the west.

The winners write history.

I think that they cannot sell the game in Europe with Hitler included. Business decision.

You think Hitler was a bad leader? What about Montezuma? Hitler certinly did a better job the Montezuma. I don't live in Europe but I simply can't see how adding Hitler would be susicide to European sales. Can anyone elaborate as to why simply putting Hitler in the game would be offensive?

The ONLY reason that Hitler is not in this game is because of the complaints and lawsuits that Firaxis would have to deal with. Look at how many people are indirectly complaining about him now, and he hasn't even been added...yet.

I don't think just adding Hitler or Stalin in the game would have opened Firaxis up to any lawsuits. At least, any reasonable lawsuits. Look at games like DoD where you can play as an Axis soldier and kill the Allies. Or, other RTS games where you can build up an army as the Axis and defeat the Allies.

I don't think they should have been added. Or, rather, I don't think it matters. What's the point of putting two historical leaders in a game already full of them? Sure, it would add to the complexity and replayability of the game, but would it really affect it that much? Just because two leaders of questionable leadership capability aren't in the game doesn't mean we all have to jump on Firaxis demanding they release a patch including them. There are way too many leaders in history to add every one. Plus, what's the deal with the obsession of World War Two leaders? What about such great American leaders as Theodore Roosevelt? Or Maragaret Thatcher?

Actually, Montezuma I was a decent leader, and I assumed that was the one in Warlords. You are probably thinking of Montezuma II that got beaten by the Spanish. :)

I belive Hitler is not in the game because, due to the de-nazification laws, the game would be illegal in Germany. No such laws exist in Russia, and therefore, Stalin is fair game. I find it funny so much is focused on Stalin here when Chairman Mao was equally horrible. If not more so...I think the Chinese death count due to Mao was upwards of 96 million.

And, you can argue that Hitler industrialized Germany as well...look at Germany in the 1920's...pretty crappy. Look at Germany in the late 1930's...military superpower.



The fact is, I think we have enough WW2 leaders. I can't believe somebody in another thread posted Tojo as a potential second Japanese leader when Meiji is clearly the modern Japanese choice...guys, there are more leaders than WW2 leaders!

The winners write history.


The winners re-write history.


The winners write history.


The winners re-write history.

just keep reading and repeating that, then you'll understand why.

They both should be included.

You think Hitler was a bad leader? What about Montezuma? Hitler certinly did a better job the Montezuma. I don't live in Europe but I simply can't see how adding Hitler would be susicide to European sales. Can anyone elaborate as to why simply putting Hitler in the game would be offensive?

I know for a fact that anything bearing the NAZI emblem is 99.999% likely to be blacklisted in germany. it's a scar on their country that they don't want ever brought up.

Man some people are ignorent.

No, you are immature and ignorant. Apart from winning WWII (and that too can be subject to debate), is there any conclusive proof that the legacy of Stalin really benefited the Russian people? Do you know for sure what would've happened instead if Stalin wasn't there? Did industrialisation really require his policies to be implemented? And one of his major policies, collectivisation, was agricultural and was in fact counter-productive such that it set the Russian economy back.

He was great because he was influential. Insisting that he was great because he benefited Russia in the long run makes you a fool.

just keep reading and repeating that, then you'll understand why.



I do not believe it needed to be quoted that many times, for a simple typo.

I do not believe it needed to be quoted that many times, for a simple typo.

then you mistake why i quoted it, many times.

Somebody has been using teh whip for too long.....

And, you can argue that Hitler industrialized Germany as well...look at Germany in the 1920's...pretty crappy. Look at Germany in the late 1930's...military superpower.

The fact is, I think we have enough WW2 leaders. I can't believe somebody in another thread posted Tojo as a potential second Japanese leader when Meiji is clearly the modern Japanese choice...guys, there are more leaders than WW2 leaders!

Firstly Germany was highly industrialized way before Hitler!! The most well known German armaments company, Krupps, existed since sometime in the mid 1800's!! Also prior to WWI Germany was already second in production globally, only surpassed by the USA!
Sure German economy and production was down in the 1920'ies, but that was mostly due to the treaty of Versailles and all it encompassed!

As for even talking about adding Tojo as a leader in Civ, that, I find, is as offensive as talking about adding Hitler. Both were war criminals, both perpetrated crimes against humanity. In the west we simply chose to ignore the Japanese war crimes as we (i.e. mainly the USA) wanted a strong Japan as a shield from Communist China. Check up on the history of war crimes committed by the Japanese during WWII (and in the 1930'ies as well) and you will see that they did what they could to measure with Hitler et al!

Sure German economy and production was down in the 1920'ies, but that was mostly due to the treaty of Versailles and all it encompassed!


The great depression also lended a hand i stifling economies of the time also.

then you mistake why i quoted it, many times.

Perhapse, if that comment made sense to me, I could have given you a better answer.

But, as I still have no idea why on earth you would want to quote it that many times, i'll just say I'm sorry if I offended you by typing a word incorrectly, but rest assured, I shall endeavour never to repeat my follies again.

You can not change the tides of history. They were both people murders and nobody expext God can change it. Stalin and Hitler were very importnant leaders in history and they both should be in Civ. How you can disable somebody from Civ only because he made good or bad things.

I know my English is weak but I am sure that you understand what am I trying to say.

Tulx

A) In less then 30 years he turned Russia from a agriculterial society to an industrial powerhouse - Russia would be near ruin if not for him modernizing Russia

B) He fixed the problem of overpopulation in Russia - if Stalin didn't purge out these peasents and curropt officals - Russia would be so overpopulated and more people would be starving to death today.

There is a lot of debate, but historians agree that the bare-minumum number of people whose deaths Stalin is repsonsible for lies around ten million. Ten million people. Next time you pull an assertion out of your ass, wiegh it against the mile-high pile of starved and shot to death.

you left out the "not another hitler thread" option....

I know for a fact that anything bearing the NAZI emblem is 99.999% likely to be blacklisted in germany. it's a scar on their country that they don't want ever brought up.

You don't have to put nazi armbands on Hitler.

Firstly Germany was highly industrialized way before Hitler!! The most well known German armaments company, Krupps, existed since sometime in the mid 1800's!! Also prior to WWI Germany was already second in production globally, only surpassed by the USA!
Sure German economy and production was down in the 1920'ies, but that was mostly due to the treaty of Versailles and all it encompassed!

As for even talking about adding Tojo as a leader in Civ, that, I find, is as offensive as talking about adding Hitler. Both were war criminals, both perpetrated crimes against humanity. In the west we simply chose to ignore the Japanese war crimes as we (i.e. mainly the USA) wanted a strong Japan as a shield from Communist China. Check up on the history of war crimes committed by the Japanese during WWII (and in the 1930'ies as well) and you will see that they did what they could to measure with Hitler et al!

Check out Stalin's record too. Not only did he have his own people in the Ukraine and elsewhere starved to death, or executed (not to mention purging his own military) but also had war crimes against his enemies. The killing of the Polish army formations in some forest (Katryn?) which they blamed on the Germans, but they also dished out very harsh treatment to many that they captured, including the returning German gulag survivors amounting to like 3%. The only reason he was never branded as a war criminal was not only because he was on the allies side, but those who would accuse him would have to deal with the embarassment of having no way to conquer his nation and take him captive. I also reason it was the same reason that Stalin could and did invade Poland alongside Hitler, and funny how nobody declared war on him. I think they just pretended he didn't have a pact with Hitler to take over many eastern european countries, not only just Poland.

You can not change the tides of history. They were both people murders and nobody expext God can change it. Stalin and Hitler were very importnant leaders in history and they both should be in Civ. How you can disable somebody from Civ only because he made good or bad things.

I know my English is weak but I am sure that you understand what am I trying to say.

Tulx

Yes, Genghis Khan was a real sweetheart too (somebody already mentioned Mao)!:lol:

The great depression also lended a hand i stifling economies of the time also.

Well, not really 'cause the great depression started with the wall street crash in 1929 ;)

Check out Stalin's record too. Not only did he have his own people in the Ukraine and elsewhere starved to death, or executed (not to mention purging his own military) but also had war crimes against his enemies. The killing of the Polish army formations in some forest (Katryn?) which they blamed on the Germans, but they also dished out very harsh treatment to many that they captured, including the returning German gulag survivors amounting to like 3%. The only reason he was never branded as a war criminal was not only because he was on the allies side, but those who would accuse him would have to deal with the embarassment of having no way to conquer his nation and take him captive. I also reason it was the same reason that Stalin could and did invade Poland alongside Hitler, and funny how nobody declared war on him. I think they just pretended he didn't have a pact with Hitler to take over many eastern european countries, not only just Poland.

I totally agree... I only mentioned Japan 'cause for some reason their share of atrocities is pretty much unknown to most westerners, even more so than Stalin's ditto's....

All in all, I think people who committed war crimes should not be included in the game.... I know many of the ancient leaders might have committed crimes as well, but I am quite sure that the warcrimes of the 20th century were on an unprecedented scale....

I think people should remember the victims, the few who survived and their relatives before talking a lot of b***sh*t regarding how much good these leaders did...

On my (long) list of people I would prefer never to see in Civ are:

Hitler et al
Stalin
Hirohito
Tojo
Pol Pot
George W. Bush
Idi Amin
Mao
Pinochet
...
...
...

I know I forgot some more here.... but I think you get my point

Stalin did 2 primary things to Russia:

A) In less then 30 years he turned Russia from a agriculterial society to an industrial powerhouse - Russia would be near ruin if not for him modernizing Russia

B) He fixed the problem of overpopulation in Russia - if Stalin didn't purge out these peasents and curropt officals - Russia would be so overpopulated and more people would be starving to death today.



Comment A) is pure Stalinist cant, fair enough, didn't know there were any of you guys left: anyone looking at the state of modern russia can see that it IS in a state of near ruin, thanks in no small part to the legacy of Stalin and the 30+ years of ossified state socialist rule after his demise. Stalin's policy of rapid industrialisation "worked" (in the sense that industrialisation was achieved, but at huge social cost) short term only, long term it has been a total disaster. Which leads me on to
Comment B) which is wrong on so many levels it took my breath away. There was, and never would have been, an overpopulation problem in Russia. This is a country that had just come out of a world war, a revolution, and a civil war. Stalin, with his terror-famine of agricultural collectivization, CAUSED a population problem, the opposite sort, the sort where people are reduced to eating their own children.

However, i can see why they put him in and left Hitler out. Stalin's inclusion is justified (esp in a Warlord add on pack) by the fact that he is one of the victors of WWII (this is why they put in churchill even though england already has two leaders). WWII COULD NOT have been won without Russia, of which Stalin was the leader at the time. Hitler LOST WWII, which makes his inclusion much less justifiable. And why would firaxis want to open up such a potential can of worms over something as minor (in terms of the game) as leader identities? If Hitler had won WWII it would be a different matter of course (and we'd be having this discussion in german, as my old headmaster liked to remark ;) )

Well, not really 'cause the great depression started with the wall street crash in 1929 ;)

The roaring economy of the 20's and the subsequent depression after the Wall St crash in 1929, caused untold misery in Germany, Hitler took advantage and promised the people that he would deliver Germany out of depression and re-arm and yada yada

My bad..

I dunno, so long as you roleply him properly, i think he hadds great fun. Make him random, included to betray his friend and open a second front on russia for no apparent reason. I f the AI is playing, just get it to random things a lot. Then when hitler starts losing have speer start ravaging all the resources and killing off their own citizens so, as hitler wanted, they would win nothing but a dead land.

There scope for an improvement hostile terrains damages units, eg snow. desert, unless that have special equip and even then, Random weather interference would be good; have the fleet you were going to use to enforce pax romana in britain sink to the bottom of the channel is very embarassing!

It's the roleplay aspect (i.e. player controlled) that makes hitler problematic. As an AI it's not so bad -who wouldn't want to have a go at kicking hitler's ass?- but if the developers let you "be" hitler then they are treading on dangerous ground (and they know it)

For example, pop whipping as Hitler has some especially queasy connotations...

It's frankly stalinist to not include a banana option in a hitler poll.

Was Hitler a great leader? Or is he rather just a giant excuse for amateur historians to pretend they know squat about the world and the nature of evil? You be the judge!!

It's the roleplay aspect (i.e. player controlled) that makes hitler problematic. As an AI it's not so bad -who wouldn't want to have a go at kicking hitler's ass?- but if the developers let you "be" hitler then they are treading on dangerous ground (and they know it)


Yes, and of course this is the main reason (I assume) for Firaxis not to include him in the game. And I am happy about that. If nothing else, the heated debate on this forum shows why Hitler should not be in Civ.
Like I said in the other thread: Do we want Firaxis embroiled in legal problems, or do we want them to concentrate on expanding Civ, making Civ 5, etc? I think the answer to that one is obvious.

General Failure

Somebody has been using teh whip for too long.....
:lol: Perfectly in context game reference. :lol:

...

I belive Hitler is not in the game because, due to the de-nazification laws, the game would be illegal in Germany. No such laws exist in Russia, and therefore, Stalin is fair game. I find it funny so much is focused on Stalin here when Chairman Mao was equally horrible. If not more so...I think the Chinese death count due to Mao was upwards of 96 million.

Just mentioning Hitler is not in violation of those laws. Hearts of Iron 2 (http://www.heartsofiron2.com/) by Paradox Interactive, a WWII grand strategy game, specifically mentioned dropping the Swastika out of the game to comply with those such laws, but Hitler is still center stage in Germany.

WWII COULD NOT have been won without Russia
Not true; after September 1940 the outcome couldn't have been any other way. Germany didn't have the kind of power projection it needed to take down Britain. Hell, even Louis XIV came closer when he invaded Ireland.
Hitler LOST WWII, which makes his inclusion much less justifiable.
Napoleon LOST the Napoleonic Wars, which caused as much proportional damage to Europe as did the Second World War. He's in the game.
If Hitler had won WWII it would be a different matter of course (and we'd be having this discussion in german, as my old headmaster liked to remark ;) )
Actually, we'd probably not be using the Internet, and almost none of us would know anyone else on OTL CFC. (Except maybe the Germans who have accounts, and of course the Japanese and maybe Italians.)

Just mentioning Hitler is not in violation of those laws. Hearts of Iron 2 (http://www.heartsofiron2.com/) by Paradox Interactive, a WWII grand strategy game, specifically mentioned dropping the Swastika out of the game to comply with those such laws, but Hitler is still center stage in Germany.
Except in the German Version, where neither Hitler, Himmler, Goring, Goebbels, Heydrich or really any of the Nazi ministers appear in the game.

Whoah really? Well there goes my theory.

hmm. It's warlords. Did hitler have anything to do with any wars??? let me see here.

It should not matter if hitler or anyone else was good/bad/evil whatever for the purposes of the game. All that should matter is if he had an impact on history while leading a nation.

Well ususlly I owuld rather not see Stalin,
But isn' he FUn?! Like I love seeing Stalin in my games, you can kill him or watch out he's coming for you!
But anyways yeah STalin did ruin Russia up prett bad but soon my dumplings it will come back hopefully like a Peaceful little Germany yay!! :D

All that should matter is if he had an impact on history while leading a nation.

No, as that would mean the game should have several thousand leaders.

Somebody beat me to it...

But seriously, it is illegal to sell anything mentioning the Nazis, Hitler, or uses the fascist emblems in Germany. No game developer who has sold a game in Germany and plans to sell the expansion pack is going to add something to make it illegal. Or, they pull something a little cheap and not mention the fascist leaders whatsoever, don't show the Nazis, and use the Iron Cross instead of the Swastika (which is a cooler symbol anyway).

They could always do what was done for the Chinese release of Civ3 (where they replaced Chairman Mao of China with a different leader). His name was...Li Shi Min, I think (the leaderhead is available online--I have it downloaded). However, I doubt they will do that twice.



drkodos has it right as well...we have to limit the game somewhat for the official expansions. And so long as there are deserving leaders that aren't as controversial, I think Firaxis will pick them instead.

Im sorry but ive seen numerous times from posters from germany that ITS NOT ILLIGAL TO SELL GAMES WITH HITLER IN IT IN GERMANY.

If your not from germany and speaking out of your ass seriously just shut up. :rolleyes:

Oi... And you were starting to make such sense.
On my (long) list of people I would prefer never to see in Civ are:

Hitler et al
Stalin
Hirohito
Tojo
Pol Pot
George W. Bush
Idi Amin
Mao
Pinochet
I don't know what you hear in Denmark. But I don't see how putting the current US president on a list with million-murders can be construed as anything other than a) an insult, and b) idiotic.
Now, I agree with you that he should not be in Civ, but that's simply because I prefer to see current leaders left out. But the list you made included ONLY mass murderers, and GWB. I don't care if I get flamed, but I must point out that this only reflects poorly on you. A war in Iraq may have been unwise, history will tell, but of the two leaders, Sadam is the villian who butchered people. This probably isn't a place for debate of current politics, but seriously, the Bush=Hitler nonsense simply makes you look foolish.

Im sorry but ive seen numerous times from posters from germany that ITS NOT ILLIGAL TO SELL GAMES WITH HITLER IN IT IN GERMANY.

If your not from germany and speaking out of your ass seriously just shut up. :rolleyes:

I just got off the phone with the German Ambassador to the United States. He said that, normally, it is not illegal to show Hitler in computer games. But, he said, in this case, since there are so many stupid threads on CivFanatics about Hitler being in Civ 10, that is illegal, just to make us all shut up.

He then offered me 100 gold if gave him Alphabet. I wasn't really sure what he meant by that. . .

Somebody beat me to it...

But seriously, it is illegal to sell anything mentioning the Nazis, Hitler, or uses the fascist emblems in Germany. No game developer who has sold a game in Germany and plans to sell the expansion pack is going to add something to make it illegal. Or, they pull something a little cheap and not mention the fascist leaders whatsoever, don't show the Nazis, and use the Iron Cross instead of the Swastika (which is a cooler symbol anyway).


Well I didn't know that before, but the making of the Swastika, Nazis, Hitler, or Fascism illegal in Germany personally seems fascist in itself to me.

I totally agree... I only mentioned Japan 'cause for some reason their share of atrocities is pretty much unknown to most westerners, even more so than Stalin's ditto's....

All in all, I think people who committed war crimes should not be included in the game.... I know many of the ancient leaders might have committed crimes as well, but I am quite sure that the warcrimes of the 20th century were on an unprecedented scale....

I think people should remember the victims, the few who survived and their relatives before talking a lot of b***sh*t regarding how much good these leaders did...

On my (long) list of people I would prefer never to see in Civ are:

Hitler et al
Stalin
Hirohito
Tojo
Pol Pot
George W. Bush
Idi Amin
Mao
Pinochet
...
...
...

I know I forgot some more here.... but I think you get my point

It's entirely possible to remember the victims and still want Hitler et al in. I just don't see the point in pretending these leaders which has such a huge impact, some far more for the worst, shouldn't be available leaders. My Polish grandfather and some of his buddies had to guard a priest here in the USA for some time during WWII because the priest had death threats from some nazi thugs, so it's not exactly like I can forget it in my case.

George Bush, give me a break!!!!!!:blush:

Comment A) is pure Stalinist cant, fair enough, didn't know there were any of you guys left: anyone looking at the state of modern russia can see that it IS in a state of near ruin, thanks in no small part to the legacy of Stalin and the 30+ years of ossified state socialist rule after his demise. Stalin's policy of rapid industrialisation "worked" (in the sense that industrialisation was achieved, but at huge social cost) short term only, long term it has been a total disaster. Which leads me on to
Comment B) which is wrong on so many levels it took my breath away. There was, and never would have been, an overpopulation problem in Russia. This is a country that had just come out of a world war, a revolution, and a civil war. Stalin, with his terror-famine of agricultural collectivization, CAUSED a population problem, the opposite sort, the sort where people are reduced to eating their own children.

However, i can see why they put him in and left Hitler out. Stalin's inclusion is justified (esp in a Warlord add on pack) by the fact that he is one of the victors of WWII (this is why they put in churchill even though england already has two leaders). WWII COULD NOT have been won without Russia, of which Stalin was the leader at the time. Hitler LOST WWII, which makes his inclusion much less justifiable. And why would firaxis want to open up such a potential can of worms over something as minor (in terms of the game) as leader identities? If Hitler had won WWII it would be a different matter of course (and we'd be having this discussion in german, as my old headmaster liked to remark ;) )

I think it's a bogus premise that you should only have people in the game that were either nice or successful. For all the suppposed moralists out here, who think having a rat in the game is such a bad thing, think that having bad guys, and Hitler was certainly one of the main guys there, serves a general good purpose. The reason this is so is that if you really take these leaders as amounting to something substantial, then you have to treat your warring as such too. So how do you morally feel warring against Ghandi with your good guy leader whomever it might be? Does it seem more comfortable to war against a rat than Ghandi? I think so. Plus there's the added satisfaction of beating some fictional depiction that is a rat. What's the satisfaction of beatng a Ghandi? I guess that makes YOU the rat, doesn't it? But this is all a mix of fiction and reality anyway, but don't go around thinking you have some moral superiority just because not having rats in the game some how cleans it up. The game is primarily about war, pure and simple.

Germany is going so pc over this warring aspect, apparently, that even leaving Hitler out probably wouldn't satisfy them. I don't know how anybody in Germany, as despicable as Hitler was, could possibly be comfortable with having Stalin in the game and then pretend the game isn't about war.

Somebody beat me to it...

But seriously, it is illegal to sell anything mentioning the Nazis, Hitler, or uses the fascist emblems in Germany.

Perhaps you haven't absorbed all my comments regarding this.... Hitler IS in the game. There are at least two quotes by him in it, so IF mentioning Hitler were illegal in Germany, then certainly they are already breaking german law in doing so.

I know putting in George W Bush was pushing it, but I think a person who sanctions scret CIA prisons, sanctions "hard questioning" (ie. torture), starts a war on false premises (and starting an aggressive war is illegal, in case you didn't know) and more of this kind is not deserving to be put in the list of leaders for Civ.
I know that putting him in the list I made looks like I compare him with Hitler, Stalin, Pol pot, Tojo etc, and I am sorry for having made my list a bit short, I should have included a few other examples of people who might not be mass murderers but still shouldn't be included in Civ.
As a Dane, I can tell you of a Danish example of a person who should never be included as a leader:
Christian II, the Danish king responsible for what is today known as the Stockholm bloodbath. I mention this to show you that I am not one-sided only, but reflect on good and bad things that origin from any country in the world, including the one I am presently staying in!

I know for a fact that anything bearing the NAZI emblem is 99.999% likely to be blacklisted in germany. it's a scar on their country that they don't want ever brought up.

Here in germany a Court ruled that even a t-Shirt with a painted man throwing a NAZI emblem in a Trash Can with subtitle "Keep your Country tidy" was use of a forbidden Sign and ruled that the Punk mailorder who sold them was Guilty. It has risen a big discussion, if the law wasnt to strictly applied and we wait for the next higher Court to overrule that.

So i think with Hitler in that Expension it would have been the Dead of Civ 4 in Germany, and with the possiblity to lay war on the Founder of Judahism ....

Yes, Genghis Khan was a real sweetheart too (somebody already mentioned Mao)!:lol:

Im unsure about Genghis, i think he is just cool :cool: and super famous leader. Hey, what´s wrong with Mao. I think he made something important but i only cant remember what:mischief: .

Yes, Genghis Khan was a real sweetheart too (somebody already mentioned Mao)!:lol:

Im unsure about Genghis, i think he is just cool :cool: and super famous leader. Hey, what´s wrong with Mao. I think he made something important but i only cant remember what:mischief: .

Yes, Genghis Khan was a real sweetheart too (somebody already mentioned Mao)!:lol:

Im unsure about Genghis, i think he is just cool :cool: and super famous leader. Hey, what´s wrong with Mao. I think he made something important but i only cant remember what:mischief: .

Yes, Genghis Khan was a real sweetheart too (somebody already mentioned Mao)!:lol:

Im unsure about Genghis, i think he is just cool :cool: and super famous leader. Hey, what wrong with Mao. I think he made something important but i only cant remember what:mischief: .

How the hell do you quadruple post? :eek:

by being impatient when forum speed is slow and multiclick on submit

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...
(I think I said this somewhere else... so many Hitler threads those day, QUICK!!! THE PATCH so it can keep them busy!!!)

by being impatient when forum speed is slow and multiclick on submit

Perhaps, but I can understand him pushing it more then once if it's taking 13 minutes.

probably the forum server was running slow in updating the posts being made ??

Im unsure about Genghis, i think he is just cool :cool: and super famous leader. Hey, what wrong with Mao. I think he made something important but i only cant remember what:mischief: .

He was basically a bloodthirsty thug overrunning many parts of the world at the time. Somewhat similar to the Hitler/Stalin class, where they offer you deals you can't refuse.

Mao, OTOH, pretty much did the same thing, but pretty much just within the boundaries of his own country. You know, taking over people's property for the State and so on, and then killing them or imprisoning them if they resisted (deals they couldn't refuse again).

Not true; after September 1940 the outcome couldn't have been any other way. Germany didn't have the kind of power projection it needed to take down Britain. Hell, even Louis XIV came closer when he invaded Ireland.

Well that's a moot point, mulled over by folks more qualified than you or I (I am assuming you are not, like, Robert Conquest or Anthony Beevor). 1940 DOES seem a little premature for predicting the outcome of a war that was to rage for 5 more years, that GB was fighting alone, and losing.... I guess "COULD NOT have won without russia" is a little final: my meaning was could not have won the war as we know it i.e. total victory in 1945. In an alternate history in which hitler did not declare war on russia, the allies could have won for sure, but maybe not till 1948, 49, 50 -hell we could still be fighting today!

The point I was trying to make was that Russia's contribution to the victory should not never be underestimated. Their casualities, civilian and military, were greater than the rest of the combatant's COMBINED. As stalin himself put it "England gave time; America gave money; Russia gave blood"

Napoleon LOST the Napoleonic Wars, which caused as much proportional damage to Europe as did the Second World War. He's in the game.

Yes, yes Napoleaon met his Waterloo... and Hannibal had his Zama, Churchill had his Galapoli, Shaka had his, er, Rourke's Drift :crazyeye: And so on...

The "great leaders" in this game nearly all have a chequered history. My point was that firaxis decided to include, not unreasonably, the victors of the greatest (as in all-encompassing) war ever inflicted on the earth for their Warlords expansion. FDR already in, so make up the last two of the "Big Three". I wasn't suggesting you have to have a 100% win record to be in the game.

Actually, we'd probably not be using the Internet, and almost none of us would know anyone else on OTL CFC. (Except maybe the Germans who have accounts, and of course the Japanese and maybe Italians.)

Come to think of it, i'd probably be lying low and flipping through my copy of "The Grasshopper Lies Heavy"....

Not true; after September 1940 the outcome couldn't have been any other way. Germany didn't have the kind of power projection it needed to take down Britain. Hell, even Louis XIV came closer when he invaded Ireland.


Louis XIV invaded Ireland huh? what the HELL are you talking about?!? was this around the same time Mussolini invaded Mars?
You ignorant fool. you've confused your games of Civ with real history i think.

The war was impossible to predict in 1940, coming from an amateur historian like myself. By 1943 (post Stalingrad and Kursk), you could make some more definite conclusions, but Hitler's shock attack throughout Europe in 1939-1940 looked fairly successful. Also, Hitler's unofficial allies (the Japanese, only official after Pearl Harbor, due to the Tripartite Pact that didn't require Hitler to declare war, etc.) were making progress in Asia.

Actually, I believe it looked like Germany was going to win in 1940.



As for Louis XIV invading Ireland...look at the Battle of the Boyne. As I understand it, the French sent soldiers to assist the Irish Catholics against the English (that was impossible to predict, right?), but he never officially tried to invade and control all of Ireland. It occurred in 1689-1691, as a result of William III of Orange, a Protestant, coming to power over the English throne. William III of Orange won the battle and the war, though, so England held Ireland.

The war was impossible to predict in 1940, coming from an amateur historian like myself. By 1943 (post Stalingrad and Kursk), you could make some more definite conclusions, but Hitler's shock attack throughout Europe in 1939-1940 looked fairly successful. Also, Hitler's unofficial allies (the Japanese, only official after Pearl Harbor, due to the Tripartite Pact that didn't require Hitler to declare war, etc.) were making progress in Asia.

Actually, I believe it looked like Germany was going to win in 1940.



As for Louis XIV invading Ireland...look at the Battle of the Boyne. As I understand it, the French sent soldiers to assist the Irish Catholics against the English (that was impossible to predict, right?), but he never officially tried to invade and control all of Ireland. It occurred in 1689-1691, as a result of William III of Orange, a Protestant, coming to power over the English throne. William III of Orange won the battle and the war, though, so England held Ireland.

Precisely. Louis assited James II to try and drive out the English. Saying he invaded Ireland is like saying the Americans's invaded England before the Normandy landings...

I know for a fact that anything bearing the NAZI emblem is 99.999% likely to be blacklisted in germany. it's a scar on their country that they don't want ever brought up.

Hi, I am from Germany, and I can say that is true that using the Nazi emblem (Swastika or in German "Hakenkreuz") is not only blacklisted, it is a crime to use it.

Theoretically I think it would be possible to have Hitler in the game without using the enblem, but even this would be severly political incorrect. The political pressure would be so strong that the great stores who sell computer games would not sell CIV IV.

Additionally there would be the danger that the wrong people could get attracted to the game. I am sure that nobody here would like to be CIV IV the Neonazies favourite game.

I think a Civ IV with Hitler would also be unsellable in some other countries, for example Israel.

So it was chosen wisely:goodjob: from Firaxis to let the fingers from Hitler.

Nethertheless, I could imagine that it would be a great fun winning a culture victory with Adolf having Judaism as state religion:crazyeye: :crazyeye:

I don't think either should be included. But if you're going to include Stalin and Mao, you should go ahead and toss in Hitler and Hirohito as well. If two mass-murderers of an era isn't too much for us to swallow, two more shouldn't be a problem.

Hmmmm, that sounds too much like: two wrongs make a right.... it's already a shame that mass murderers made it in the game, it won't make things better to include even more of those b*st*rds

Barney's_Soul It never helps society (any societ) to just kill people. There is never any reason for a government or group or anybody to just kill people (ok maybe if they are like on a battlefeild and are going to die from being wounded)!! If you think that the killing of people helps in any way, then you need help.

Nikis-Knight (in post 48), I agree, TOTALY!!:goodjob:

Kristian95 (in post 54) I mean like some people say that Iraq didn't have the whatever it was that they allegedly had, but, like westerners we spent what 2 months talking about it before we actualy invaded. Tell me what you think they would have done with those few months.

Because maybe Hitler could be offencive to some people

As stated before from our friend in Germany. Anything dealing with Hitler or the third reich is illegal in some countries to be displayed. Mostly Germany. So say like its halloween and you want to dress up like Hitler becuase you are a sick person. You would be arrested in Germany for wearing a light brown uniform, which by the way is still illegal today. Just the damn color of an outfit. They would hurt overseas sales by adding Hitler with or without a swastica.

I think they added people like Stalin and Mao not so that you can play as them. But so that you feel a little more satisfaction when you wipe their faces on the wall.

I don't know about all of you. But when I play, Stalin and Mao are some of the dumbest AI's. I don't think I have ever played a game and they had scores that were not in the bottom rings. I wonder if they set their AIs to be dumber for this reason.

There are Mods available to add Hitler, that should be enough. I don't want to see him as a leader, myself. I think with the game having Fascism as a tech is far enough. To add Hitler in, would mean that you need to add a new national wonder like 'nationalist genocidial solutions.' What are they going to call it? The 'Wannsee Conference' or 'Austwitz.' I'm not going to build that.

No hiel for Hitler. Gut Wriggens.

-Nick

I agree, that do to the atrocities that Hitler comited against so many people, that he should not be incorperated in the game. Still I think that, because Hitler had such an impact on modern history, Firaxis should provide a free download, that contains everything needed to add him to the game. I wopuld download it so I could kick his a$$.

Kristian95 (in post 54) I mean like some people say that Iraq didn't have the whatever it was that they allegedly had, but, like westerners we spent what 2 months talking about it before we actualy invaded. Tell me what you think they would have done with those few months.

With the history of how Saddam Hussein operated I would assume that if he still had any WoMD (weapons of mass destruction) he wouldn't destroy them but rather use them if he thought it is his only way of staying in power.
That was not an issue in the first Gulf War, as the US coalition forces stopped well before Bagdad.

As for talking before attacking, I still believe, that if the West is to keep any credability, we should adhere to decitions made by the UN, and only take military action if sanctioned by the UN.

Honestly speaking, I don't think that the military HQ in the US thought the war against terror in Iraq through! If they had, I think more effort would have been made to win the peace and not only the war.
With the current situation in Iraq, I am not sure the Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam.... after all, many civilians are killed every day!

With the history of how Saddam Hussein operated I would assume that if he still had any WoMD (weapons of mass destruction) he wouldn't destroy them but rather use them if he thought it is his only way of staying in power.
That was not an issue in the first Gulf War, as the US coalition forces stopped well before Bagdad.

Hind sight being always 20/20, I do believe that it was a big mistake to invade Iraq. Post war a person that I work with (scientist) was in Iraq looking for WMDs and WMD facilities. He did not find any but found evidence of facilities that could quickly ramp up produciton of such weapons. What does this mean, I do not know.

As for talking before attacking, I still believe, that if the West is to keep any credability, we should adhere to decitions made by the UN, and only take military action if sanctioned by the UN.

The UN is dead. It has no legitimicy outside the west.

Honestly speaking, I don't think that the military HQ in the US thought the war against terror in Iraq through! If they had, I think more effort would have been made to win the peace and not only the war.
With the current situation in Iraq, I am not sure the Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam.... after all, many civilians are killed every day!
You only need to have a few neurons firing off in your brain to figure out that things are completely messed up in Iraq. There was no plan for post war Iraq, since the Iraqies would love the liberators and bow to their will.

As for talking before attacking, I still believe, that if the West is to keep any credability, we should adhere to decitions made by the UN, and only take military action if sanctioned by the UN.

Honestly speaking, I don't think that the military HQ in the US thought the war against terror in Iraq through! If they had, I think more effort would have been made to win the peace and not only the war.
With the current situation in Iraq, I am not sure the Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam.... after all, many civilians are killed every day!

I agree the UN is usless. We fund the whole damn thing. With Iraq, Bush gained much support from the populus when it took 2 months for the UN to organize a search of his facitlities. At that point, the UN, more than the Bush's admin's allegation of WMDs, had a greater influence on my opinion at that point. They had so little research on Iraq, and took so long to deal it. Plus the countries sent by the UN for the surveying were from countries that have been accused over and over again for having oil deals with Iraq who was embargoed. At that point Bush had all the support in the US he needed.

However .... to say the Iraqies were better off under Saddam? What is wrong with you. Yes, we cannot really find a solution and are knee deep in steaming pile, but a couple of suicide bombers fighting for liberty IS a whole lot better than thousands of people disappearing in the night for being a Kurd or something other than Sunni. You suggest that mass genocide is better? I guess Europe wouldn't understand? OH Wait, yeah you should. Especially beign from Denmark. What's up?

I think one reason the UN has "no legitimicy" outside the west (a point I do not share completely) is that the west, i.e. USA, UK and Denmark for instance show it is of no consequence what is decided there and wage war "as they please"... slightly simplified, but I think my point comes through.

As for Iraq as it is, I think that looking back in history, people (Pentagon et al (UK and Denmark) should have learned the lesson from WWII, that the Marshall plan actually left western Europe quite stable, I think Germany could have turned out a nasty bees hive if it had been left in ruins.... therefore the sufficient amount of money should have been allocated to rebuilding infrastructure... as far as I remember it took painfully long time to even get the water supply working again in many Iraqi cities, just to name an example.

Being from Denmark myself, I think I am entitled to bash the coalitions way of handling the situation ;)

I agree the UN is usless. We fund the whole damn thing. With Iraq, Bush gained much support from the populus when it took 2 months for the UN to organize a search of his facitlities. At that point, the UN, more than the Bush's admin's allegation of WMDs, had a greater influence on my opinion at that point. They had so little research on Iraq, and took so long to deal it. Plus the countries sent by the UN for the surveying were from countries that have been accused over and over again for having oil deals with Iraq who was embargoed. At that point Bush had all the support in the US he needed.

However .... to say the Iraqies were better off under Saddam? What is wrong with you. Yes, we cannot really find a solution and are knee deep in steaming pile, but a couple of suicide bombers fighting for liberty IS a whole lot better than thousands of people disappearing in the night for being a Kurd or something other than Sunni. You suggest that mass genocide is better? I guess Europe wouldn't understand? OH Wait, yeah you should. Especially beign from Denmark. What's up?

Hmmmm I think I better point the fact out to you that the USA is one of the worlds countries which owes the biggest debt to the UN, ie. has not paid its "membership fee"!!!

Furthermore I did not say that the Iraqis were better off with Saddam, I just pointed out that they might not (as a whole!) be much better off as things are now.

Yeah .... Not really. Yes, there is an outstanding slight debt the US holds. Basically because we want the UN reformed. Probably because we want it to work our way.

However, your membership fee is based off your countries size, population and more importantly your influence. Which means that our debt coverage of the UN is 25%. The next closest is Japan at 19.~% and Germany at like 9%. Which doesn't make any sense why China's is .4% The UN gives discounts so that countries stay in the UN. Which is rediculous. Anyways the US cap was lowered in 2002 to 22% when we almost stepped out and told the UN to move outa of New York. The UN agreed to lower the debt percent to 22 in hopes we would finally pay the rest of our considerable dues. We have threatened to resign from the UN multible times. Especially after the Food for Oil ****.

So the US's question is why are we paying all these billions of dollars to the UN and why do we have to cover it by 25%? If you live in an apartment with 192 other people and you have to pay 25% of the rent. You be a little PO'd too.

I'm for the US pulling out of the UN. Or atleast threatening it enough until our percentage is lowered to a reasonable number. I mean, its not like we can win by Diplomacy or anything. I guess Domination it is. Better build some more jails.

I know that putting him in the list I made looks like I compare him with Hitler, Stalin, Pol pot, Tojo etc, and I am sorry for having made my list a bit short, I should have included a few other examples of people who might not be mass murderers but still shouldn't be included in Civ. Well, it sounded like this:
Suppose I post "Here is a list of things I won't eat: cyanide, rat poison, old batteries, Danish food, feces, ..etc."
"What?" you say, "Why do you compare Danish food to poison?"
and I reply, "no, I just won't eat it because I don't live in Denmark."
Perhaps, but the implication was clear if the only other things on the list are deadly poison, you can assume the comparisson even if it isn't stated.
But if you say you have better judgement than it seemed, I'll take your word for it.

Back on topic, I think I'd actually prefer Hitler included, on two points-- He was very influential in history. Can't really argue with this, but I'd respect, or prefer, a decision to keep mass-mass murderers out on grounds of taste. But with Mao and Stalin in, it makes it seem like the Nazis were that much worse than the Communists. Stalin was the one who said "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic." (paraphrase, but close.) Just because the Communists claimed to have better motives doesn't make their mass forced starvations, etc. any less evil than the Nazis.
Two ways would have been a decent compromise--either put them in as AI only (an option which is availible for mods or scenarios but unused) or as downloads. Either way, it's Firaxis' choice and is an interesting discussion (though one that pops up a lot!) but I wouldn't condemn them either way.
This:
B) He fixed the problem of overpopulation in Russia - if Stalin didn't purge out these peasents and curropt officals - Russia would be so overpopulated and more people would be starving to death today.
I'll condemn that everywhich way!!
last tangent point:
Hmmmm I think I better point the fact out to you that the USA is one of the worlds countries which owes the biggest debt to the UN, ie. has not paid its "membership fee"!!!Aw shucks, does that mean they're gonna kick us out? Please?

Here's a hint about how much of a "great leader" Stalin was. When he was dying, lying near unconsciousness in a pool of his own vomit, none of his men dared help him, partly because he was a cruel man and would send them to the Gulag if they screwed up, but mostly because they just plain hated his guts.

Back on topic, I think I'd actually prefer Hitler included, on two points-- He was very influential in history. Can't really argue with this, but I'd respect, or prefer, a decision to keep mass-mass murderers out on grounds of taste. But with Mao and Stalin in, it makes it seem like the Nazis were that much worse than the Communists. Stalin was the one who said "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic." (paraphrase, but close.) Just because the Communists claimed to have better motives doesn't make their mass forced starvations, etc. any less evil than the Nazis.

Most people are now au fait with the idea that Mao and Stalin were as big as monsters as Hitler, and in fact murdered more of their own populace -and yet Hitler, and Nazism, are subject to far more censure. For example, you can admit to being a communist and generally all people will think is that you're a bit of a kook and nothing more (in the UK at least); say you're a nazi, or just a fascist, and you will reap the whirlwind....
why is this? i don't think it is just "history written by the winners"; there is a funadamental moral difference -we differentiate on some level.

Robert Conquest, a historian who played a huge part in exposing the social cost of Stalinist industrialisation and forced collectivisation, was once asked what was worse: the totalitarianism of the fascists, or the totalitarianism of the communists. He knew, better than anyone else, that the communists had killed a greater number of people, mostly their own people, than the fascists. And yet he answered that Nazism was worse that Stalinism. All he could say by way of explanation was: "because I feel it". And that's something we all feel. It goes beyond the statistics and the kill ratios

I think we forgive communism its many sins because, no matter how perverted it may have become, it was born out of the ideals of the Enlightenment -the idea that all men are born equal. Nazism was born out of opposite and baser motives: that one sort of person is better than another; to the point of annihilation.

Folks on this forum have speculated that one day in the future Adolf Hitler will be seen as a great leader, like Napoleon. I don't think he'll ever be rehabilitated. uh-uh.

I think we forgive communism its many sins because, no matter how perverted it may have become, it was born out of the ideals of the Enlightenment -the idea that all men are born equal. Nazism was born out of opposite and baser motives: that one sort of person is better than another; to the point of annihilation. Well... "Road to Hell" and all that.

I'll agree that Americans forgive communism easier under that train of thought. However, I believe that its not the mass murder that Stalin and Mao practiced that puts a bad taste in our mouth. As we can look at almost any great leader or past figure and see some sort of imprisonment ideas or killing for control. These aren't the first leaders to use fear as a symbol of control. The mass genocide is my opinion why we hate Hitler so.

Killing because you are peranoid, we've seen before. Killing becuase you have a messed up sense of reality of why a country you immigrated to lost the last war ... doesn't sit so well.

I agree with you on that one Kauyon!!
And though I wish Stalin and Mao weren't in the game in the first place, I am less disgusted by their appearance than if Hitler made it to the game.
As for people who say: put him there as a non-playable AI, I bet there're enough people who'd mod the non-playability right out of it....

Yeah, I think we pretty much have an agreement there. No Hitler as a standard. There are mods people. You want it, you can have it. Look under mods, Hitler is there.

I think one reason the UN has "no legitimicy" outside the west (a point I do not share completely) is that the west, i.e. USA, UK and Denmark for instance show it is of no consequence what is decided there and wage war "as they please"... slightly simplified, but I think my point comes through.

As for Iraq as it is, I think that looking back in history, people (Pentagon et al (UK and Denmark) should have learned the lesson from WWII, that the Marshall plan actually left western Europe quite stable, I think Germany could have turned out a nasty bees hive if it had been left in ruins.... therefore the sufficient amount of money should have been allocated to rebuilding infrastructure... as far as I remember it took painfully long time to even get the water supply working again in many Iraqi cities, just to name an example.

Being from Denmark myself, I think I am entitled to bash the coalitions way of handling the situation
Enbolding by Me.

Well I do belive that the UN no longer does what it was created to do, preserve world peace (through force if necessary).

Let me think, both Iran & N. Korea (which already detonated an Nuke) defy the UN in its demand that they suspend all furth Nuclear tests. Oh, & they didn't stop Hezbola when they were fireing Katushas into Israel, so Israel was forced to invade Lebanon.

Hope I spelt everything right.

@Barney (the OP)

Overpopulation in Russia? You are aware that Russia population is now decreasing and that Russian is the only major language to be on the decline, right? Stalin purging competent, innocent officials only hurt the USSR, leaving it weak and paranoid.

There is a quote, although I do not know who spoke it. It goes, "You don't get to choose your evil dictators."

I think leaders were placed in this game (and I may be just reiterating a made point, but all the better to enforce it) not on account of their morality (if this were the case, the game would be severely lacking in the Montezuma, Mao and Temujin etc. departments) but on their overall effectiveness. True, Stalin did horrible things to the USSR, but on the whole he practically raised it to superpower status, such that it might be able to compete with the U.S. (indeed it did: Cold War). The methods by which he attained this weren't exactly "good", but they were, on the whole, effective. He was very Machiavellian: "The ends justify the means."

It is for this reason I support Stalin's being in the game. I may not like Stalin or agree with his policies, but alas, he was a leader. The past must not be smudged.

This brings up Hitler. If Stalin was Machiavellian, Hitler was twice that, and then some. It is as IdiotWind said, that Hitler simply won't do. So we won't be seeing an official Hitler.

Which is where the "bright and innovative Civ community" comes in.

Stalin didnt make USSR a superpower, as it was superpower already since the reign of Peter the Great. Moreover, USSR lost cold war and fell into crysis, while Germany in the whole become one of the greatest economical powers.
I would also add, that Ribbentropp-Molotov pact between USSR and Nazi's Germany opened a way for the WWII. It hadnt started by German assault on France, but attack of Germany and USSR on Poland. So Stalin is accessory of all its cruelties and genocide it implicated.

About those texts of overpopulation in Russia...It is SCANDALIC opinion. For me it looks much the same as saying, that holocaust solved the problem of overpopulation in Germany. I advise that person to come to eastern Europe and say it in face of kinsmen those a dozen of so killed ukrainians, polish, lithuanians, latvians, estonians, fins, chechens, and many more.

I understand that opinions depend on points of view. Even single but close person is much more important than hundreds of thousands several miles away. What are millions of lifes few thousands miles away? I guess nothing in some people's eyes. They excuse Stalin simply because didnt lose any relatives, while nazis were fighting with them.

I understand that it is a result of real-politik. Western countries justify Stalin, becasue they had to ally with him to defeat Hitler. No one will plead guilty of coming into agreement with devil to defeat another one...even it was necessary.

Edit: For some reason unknown to me, the word hitlre is not showing up when I post. That is why it is misspelled in the quote and in my reply.

Ever wonder why Stalin made it into CivIV and Hitlre didn't? Stalin was a great leader that's why!

Stalin did 2 primary things to Russia:

A) In less then 30 years he turned Russia from a agriculterial society to an industrial powerhouse - Russia would be near ruin if not for him modernizing Russia

B) He fixed the problem of overpopulation in Russia - if Stalin didn't purge out these peasents and curropt officals - Russia would be so overpopulated and more people would be starving to death today.

Hitlre killed many people too BUT:
Germany was not better off after Hitlre died, unlike with Stalin, Hitlre almost brought Germany to the brink of destruction.

Sure, the Soviet Union was struggleing in the short-term during the 5 Year Plans and Great Purges - but the long-term benifits outweigh the short ones.

I can't believe you would even say that! :mad: Stalin and Hitlre were both Completely Evil. :mad: Even saying Stalin did anything good is terrible! :mad: How can you say the purges were good? He randomly killed millions! The peasents didn’t do anything wrong and the officials were not corrupt! Hitlre would have easily defeated Stalin if the allies didn't help him! Do you know why Hitlre's men just marched through Russia when they first invaded?! Stalin had killed all the generals and people who knew anything about military strategy! It took many, many years for someone to have enough experience to be an even decent general! Stalin was NOT a good leader, he killed anyone who was smart or could actually help the country, so that no one could take his position. He hurt the nation horribly! If he had not been there, Russia would have been much better off! :mad: If either of them was a good leader, it would definitely be Hitlre. I am not saying I support Hitlre, He was terrible too!

:thumbdown :mad: :thumbdown

And, you can argue that Hitler industrialized Germany as well...look at Germany in the 1920's...pretty crappy. Look at Germany in the late 1930's...military superpower.



Industrialized Germany? It had been industrialized, highly developed, since the 19th century. As for the army, all H. had to do was to decree that it should once more be expanded. Germany was full of former officers and soldiers who were only too happy to take up their old trade, and industries which were only too happy to supply the equipment.



The fact is, I think we have enough WW2 leaders. I can't believe somebody in another thread posted Tojo as a potential second Japanese leader when Meiji is clearly the modern Japanese choice...guys, there are more leaders than WW2 leaders!

I completely agree. And as it is, China has two warmongering leaders. Why not lift out the bungler Mao and introduce Sun Yatsen instead? He introduced the republic and initiated a modernization programme for China. A great man invoked both by Communist China and Taiwan.

You don't have to put nazi armbands on Hitler.

Do you think the Germans are idiots? You might just as well say: "You don't have to depict Shaka as black" or "You don't have to acknowledge that Victoria was queen of Great Britain". The Germans know what Hitler was, all right, even though some posters in these forums seem not to do so.

Check out Stalin's record too. Not only did he have his own people in the Ukraine and elsewhere starved to death, or executed (not to mention purging his own military) but also had war crimes against his enemies. The killing of the Polish army formations in some forest (Katryn?) which they blamed on the Germans, but they also dished out very harsh treatment to many that they captured, including the returning German gulag survivors amounting to like 3%. The only reason he was never branded as a war criminal was not only because he was on the allies side, but those who would accuse him would have to deal with the embarassment of having no way to conquer his nation and take him captive. I also reason it was the same reason that Stalin could and did invade Poland alongside Hitler, and funny how nobody declared war on him. I think they just pretended he didn't have a pact with Hitler to take over many eastern european countries, not only just Poland.

The forest is called Katyn.

The reason "nobody declared war on him" (Stalin) was that the US was not at war with anyone and wanted to stay that way, and Britain and France felt they had their hands full with Hitler.

I totally agree... I only mentioned Japan 'cause for some reason their share of atrocities is pretty much unknown to most westerners, even more so than Stalin's ditto's....

All in all, I think people who committed war crimes should not be included in the game.... I know many of the ancient leaders might have committed crimes as well, but I am quite sure that the warcrimes of the 20th century were on an unprecedented scale....

And they lived in the distant past; nobody dreams of reviving Genghis Khan's empire or reintroducing human sacrifices along the Aztec model. Nobody paints murderous symbols referring to Montezuma or Alexander on synagogues, Jewish community centres or mosques.

I think people should remember the victims, the few who survived and their relatives before talking a lot of b***sh*t regarding how much good these leaders did...

Exactly. That is true of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Tojo.

[On my (long) list of people I would prefer never to see in Civ are:

Hitler et al
Stalin
Hirohito
Tojo
Pol Pot
George W. Bush
Idi Amin
Mao
Pinochet
...
...
...

I know I forgot some more here.... but I think you get my point

You forgot Franco and Mussolini, both of which have (amazingly) been suggested as leaders to include. And Lenin.

I dunno, so long as you roleply him properly, i think he hadds great fun. Make him random, included to betray his friend and open a second front on russia for no apparent reason. I f the AI is playing, just get it to random things a lot. Then when hitler starts losing have speer start ravaging all the resources and killing off their own citizens so, as hitler wanted, they would win nothing but a dead land.

Wouldn't it be better to have spearman kill all Hitler's Panzers?

Not that that raving, murderous lunatic will ever be introduced in any version of Civ.

Napoleon LOST the Napoleonic Wars, which caused as much proportional damage to Europe as did the Second World War. He's in the game.



The Napoleonic Wars did not cause as much proportional damage to Europe as the Second World War. In addition to that, Napoleon actually did some constructive things, such as emancipating serfs and Jews and introducing the Code Napoléon. That legacy remained after he had lost his empire. That is not to say that he was a thoroughly decent chap or anything like that; but a 19th century Hitler or Stalin he was not.

No, as that would mean the game should have several thousand leaders.

Bravo! I'm so fed up with that tired old argument. "Attila was a great leader so he should be included in the game".

Well I didn't know that before, but the making of the Swastika, Nazis, Hitler, or Fascism illegal in Germany personally seems fascist in itself to me.

In that case you must have a highly personal conception of what the word "fascist" means. If it was needed, your post illustrates the fact that like "politically correct", the word "fascist" has degenerated into a simple term of abuse.

There is a lot of games you can play as Nazi or command nazi's forces during WWII. The same rule apply to bolsheviks. Even in Civilization, there are such things like panzer (obviously connected with WWII), fascism tech, population sacrifice to rush production or city razing. All politically incorrect. However, Hitler is banned and Stalin not.
If think that if we would want to clean Civ off all leaders that have innocent blood on their hands, probably there wouldnt be anybody left. IMO Civ games have educational value - thats why I wouldnt censor the history, but put proper commentary on few matters (or example Hitler, Stalin and so on).
Please tell me - would you cut some people off encyclopaedias only because their activity should be condemned for ever?

Conclusion:
Depending on criteria of greatness or importance, Stalin, Hitler and Mao should be all in game, or all off game.

Kristian95 (in post 54) I mean like some people say that Iraq didn't have the whatever it was that they allegedly had, but, like westerners we spent what 2 months talking about it before we actualy invaded. Tell me what you think they would have done with those few months.

They could have waited for Hans Blix's team of arms inspectors to finish their job. Blix said that the Iraqis had started to cooperate fully and that they would have a definite answer within two months. However, as we now know, Bush had decided to invade the country regardless of whether it had weapons of mass destruction or not.

Enbolding by Me.

Well I do belive that the UN no longer does what it was created to do, preserve world peace (through force if necessary).

Let me think, both Iran & N. Korea (which already detonated an Nuke) defy the UN in its demand that they suspend all furth Nuclear tests. Oh, & they didn't stop Hezbola when they were fireing Katushas into Israel, so Israel was forced to invade Lebanon.

Hope I spelt everything right.

I am not disputing that North Korea and Iran have defied the UN, but like it or not, the US, under G. W. Bush's leadership has defied the UN as well, since the war in Iraq was _not_ sanctioned by the UN and therefore an illegal aggressive war... which btw definately didn't slow the Iranian and North Korean regimes in getting nukes.... do you blame them ?? It seems the only way to ensure never being attacked by the US... sorry for that last rant, but I think G. W. Bush ought to take some more responsability for his actions!

Sure, I would like to see Hitlre in the game; because he impacted world history so much. But it is not going to happen. Firaxes will not be able to sell the game in many countries, even if it is not illegal. People have put it in mods, so just download one of them if you want him.

They could have waited for Hans Blix's team of arms inspectors to finish their job. Blix said that the Iraqis had started to cooperate fully and that they would have a definite answer within two months. However, as we now know, Bush had decided to invade the country regardless of whether it had weapons of mass destruction or not.

I agree 100% !!!

of course they should be in both..but i understand the reasons why hitler left out of the game.national democrat party(national sosyalist party-remember) got %8 of votes in rostock.they are growing day by day and unhappy with 3 million turks in germany..believe me turks are replacing jewish people of some days..everyone is fearing about neo-nazi thing.not only turks but also tourists significantly decreased..civ with power-hugry hitler can negatively effect some young minds IMO.

Stalin didnt make USSR a superpower, as it was superpower already since the reign of Peter the Great. Moreover, USSR lost cold war and fell into crysis, while Germany in the whole become one of the greatest economical powers.
I would also add, that Ribbentropp-Molotov pact between USSR and Nazi's Germany opened a way for the WWII. It hadnt started by German assault on France, but attack of Germany and USSR on Poland. So Stalin is accessory of all its cruelties and genocide it implicated.
Definitely arguable; the part about the USSR being a superpower since Peter.*This cannot be so, as Russia was in poor shape by 1917 and the Communist Revolution. Peter was Great, and definitely escalated Russia to greatness (if, for at least, a period of time), and that is why he is in the game, but Stalin's aggression and industrialization (despite horrible, albeit powerful, tactics) is what puts him in the game. If I can recall correctly, Peter's Russia definitely was not on par such that it could do what Stalin's USSR did, as they are two completely different time periods. Again, not saying Stalin is better or worse than Peter, to avoid controversy, but keeping Stalin out on the grounds that his deeds grew out of the grounds of Peter's is just plain stupid. You might as well keep FDR out on the grounds that there wouldn't be a USA were it not for Washington, and so you should only put in Washington.

And the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact could have definitely been a cause for WWII, but if you are to further ban Stalin from the game on the grounds that he caused a war (even if it were a monumentally gigantic war), keep in mind that almost every leader in Civ caused or was a great part of a war at one point or another.

Finally, to make this Civ game completely representative, you need a Russian leader to represent the modern Russia, and impacted World History greatly. Lo and behold, in the past 100 years no leader more changed Russia (for better or for worse; I'd say on histographic scales that historians consider that Stalin's industrialization outweighed the genocide in terms of making the USSR a superpower) than Stalin. You might argue "Lenin", but Lenin will not only not invoke as much feeling, but it was certainly not he who made the USSR a superpower. You could also argue Gorbachev, but that speaks from the point that Democracy is better than Communism, which may be true, but this game is completely objective.

Stalin is not my favorite leader. I do not like him, or his policies, and in fact a few of my relations have suffered at his hands, but I can't possibly say that not much happened to Russia under his rule - least of all the ability to build nukes with which to compete with the NATO.

To Crezth:
I disagree. Russia was as poor in 1917, as in 1990. Russia was superpower - the main military difference with USSR is that it hadn't ICBM's. USSR, as well as Russia couldn't withstand German military. Stalin owes "his" victory a gigantical amount of money and equipment pumped into USSR by FDR on the basis of lend-lease agreement.
Tzarist Russia was 5th rank in the world in production of steel, had well-developed oil industry, well established academic societies in Moscow and Sankt-Petersburg, many great thinkers, constructors, writers and scientists. These people could make Russia stronger and its nation richer. Most of these people were killed or placed in work camps by decision of Stalin. Miensheviks, even trockists would govern this country better. Thats why I say Stalin pushed slowed down Russia economical development or even pushed it back.
Only one thing is true: he was dangerous and historically important person. But exactly the same you can say about Hitler.

I think Russia was represented enough by Peter and Catherine. Many other countries dont have contemporary leaders neither. Because of that I dont think Stalin should be in game. But if someone wanted to create flavoured expansion with most important warlords, Stalin alongside with Hitler could be included - as I dont like political corectness and any form of censorship. IMO just suitable description, appropraite traits and AI personality (sth like Tokugawa has currently!) should be given, to make people aware of all theirs atrocities.

mass-murderers should not be made funny characters in a video game.

mass-murderers should not be made funny characters in a video game.
Agreed. :nono: :nono: :nono:

I agree on that as well!!

Finally, to make this Civ game completely representative, you need a Russian leader to represent the modern Russia, and impacted World History greatly. Lo and behold, in the past 100 years no leader more changed Russia (for better or for worse; I'd say on histographic scales that historians consider that Stalin's industrialization outweighed the genocide in terms of making the USSR a superpower) than Stalin.

Gorbatchev ? ;)

I have to disagree that nobody would industrialize Russia like Stalin. The industrialization plans already exists before Stalin ( and even before bolshevic revolution ) and probably would applied with less human sacrifices without his lidership ... :rolleyes:

mass-murderers should not be made funny characters in a video game.

Then we should eliminate Genghis, Alexander, Stalin, Mao, Ceasar, Brennus, Saladin, Asoka, Isabella, Napolean, etc, etc..... ?

Wow, you are so funny! Just reading this thread amused me at levels of brainwashing)))

mass-murderers should not be made funny characters in a video game.

Yes they should. But they should sell the game only to us smart people who understand the differences between fiction and reality. :D

BTW - who voted 'Only Hitler should have been included'? :lol:

Yes they should. But they should sell the game only to us smart people who understand the differences between fiction and reality. :D

BTW - who voted 'Only Hitler should have been included'? :lol:

It has nothing to do with understanding the difference between fiction and reality, but it has everything to do with being respectful to all the victims of people like Hitler!

It has nothing to do with understanding the difference between fiction and reality, but it has everything to do with being respectful to all the victims of people like Hitler!

You're dead wrong there. Understanding the difference and fiction is the key of being able to have Adolf, Josif, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer er al as characters in a work of fiction.

But you do need to be smart to understand that. ;)

You're dead wrong there. Understanding the difference and fiction is the key of being able to have Adolf, Josif, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer er al as characters in a work of fiction.

But you do need to be smart to understand that.

Unfortunately, you're calling the majority of the world stupid. Including almost whole races and religions.

Sometimes it's not just about reality and fiction. It's about sensitivities. Humans are an emotional lot, and we have to live with that.

Unfortunately, you're calling the majority of the world stupid. Including almost whole races and religions.


While I am not defending his position, at all, I must say that by definition, 49% of the world is below average intelligence.



There is only a 2% margin that could make them the majority if they try harder. ;)

Fortunately Civ4 players are mainly above this limits - nu ? ;)

As always, just mentioning Hitler will cause immediate degenartion of any discussion..

I wouldn't want Hitler in the game. Neither would I want Stalin. Or Mao. Or FDR, Churchill, or any other recent leader. This is simply because they're too recent to have been fallen into history.
I'm not sure about the cutoff date, but for now I guess somewhere between WWI and WWII would be fine - WWI is in the past in the sense that people from the time have since passed (very few are alive anymore who remember WWI), while many of the WWII veterans are still alive, not to mention people who have experienced the post-war rebuilding and polictics.
Would leaders from between the periods qualify? Maybe should drop them as too recent. Time between wars is usually spent in recovering from one or preparing for the other anyway, which actually does cover most of the early 20th century..

I assume WWII (and -era) leaders would be added by mods in any case, so anyone who really wanted them could get them. But just the leader traits would be hot enough topic. Remember: everyone is a WWII expert while way fewer claim to be WWI experts :)

Now, several post-WWI leaders are in the game. Whether their merits justify this will be judged in a century or few, and consensus won't be reached by the civ50 community either even if they are a bit more removed from the experience themselves. And as such, I treat civ as a game: I choose to play using some leader or other based on game mechanical issues, not because of political issues.

I find Churchill interesting because of his leader traits (Charismatic, Protective) combined with Redcoats. Aligns nicely to the time I usually fight the biggest, most extensive, of my wars in the game.
I don't find FDR as appealing even if the traits (Ind/Org) seem to have nice synergy lending to a powerful game, but that's partially because I don't find America as civilization that appealing (too late UU and UB, although the starting tech combination seems fine).
I don't find Stalin appealing partially because of his trait combination (Agg/Ind), partially because of the UU and UB (UB is way too late, and I find it hard to utilize cavalry well enough to justify the UU), and in the end if I decide to play Russia, I'd rather take Cathy for the traits.
Again with China, I've had a couple of nice games with Qin (I get stone into my capitol's fat cross when playing Ind leader? Is the map generator telling me to go wondernut?), but will probably try Mao too.

Even if Hitler were in the game, I might end up not playing using him. The German UB is somewhat late and the UU not only late but depends on fighting against Tanks (Pantzer's +50% against Armored units does actually make it viable against Modern Armor as well should a war dredge that far). So I don't play German leaders much anyway, but what viable unique trait combination would bring a new view to running the German civ?

Unfortunately, you're calling the majority of the world stupid. Including almost whole races and religions.

While I am not defending his position, at all, I must say that by definition, 49% of the world is below average intelligence.

Damn you, that was to be my line! :D

And yes, I believe the world is full of idiots.

Sometimes it's not just about reality and fiction. It's about sensitivities. Humans are an emotional lot, and we have to live with that.

Using your train of logic, rape victims are to blame, since they didn't take their rapists' emotions into consideration by dressing provocately.

I saw no reason why whackjob muslim's feelings should limit Danish freedom of speech, and I see even less reason why somebody's feelings regarding an option in a game which is optional to play should limit freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech not only gives you the right - inside the boundaries of your country's law - to say what you want, but also others. And you can't limit that right by appealing to sensitivity and emotions, because you'd have to ban virtually everything or create second-class citizens. In other words, you can't fight totaliarism with totaliarism and remain democratic.

Also, check the poll results. If it's such a sensitive issue, how come over a hundred people want Hitler in the game?

And yes, I believe the world is full of idiots.

That's why you might support a mass murderer.

Using your train of logic, rape victims are to blame, since they didn't take their rapists' emotions into consideration by dressing provocately.

I saw no reason why whackjob muslim's feelings should limit Danish freedom of speech, and I see even less reason why somebody's feelings regarding an option in a game which is optional to play should limit freedom of speech.

Well, rapists break the law. Protesting against people making fun of your religious figure does not break any law.

Freedom of speech not only gives you the right - inside the boundaries of your country's law - to say what you want, but also others. And you can't limit that right by appealing to sensitivity and emotions, because you'd have to ban virtually everything or create second-class citizens. In other words, you can't fight totaliarism with totaliarism and remain democratic.

So perfect democracy = anarchy?

Also, check the poll results. If it's such a sensitive issue, how come over a hundred people want Hitler in the game?

Because most of these people didn't live under conditions imposed by Hitler or had no close relations that were victims of his.

Freedom of speech not only gives you the right - inside the boundaries of your country's law - to say what you want, but also others. And you can't limit that right by appealing to sensitivity and emotions, because you'd have to ban virtually everything or create second-class citizens. In other words, you can't fight totaliarism with totaliarism and remain democratic.



Wrong.

Freedom of speech is a legal term that means an individual may speak openly and freely about their own government without fear of reprisal from said government.


No more.

No less.





Also, check the poll results. If it's such a sensitive issue, how come over a hundred people want Hitler in the game?


Because people are ignoramouses, undereducated, and unaware of reality. That is why. I suspect if you were able to check demographics, as age goes down, yes votes go up.

This is likely caused by two dynamics: the lessening of pain over time, and the increasing ignorance of today's youth to understand or try to assimilate in their conscious what has come before their arrival on the planet.

So perfect democracy = anarchy?

Are you doing this deliberately, or do you belong to the 49% mentioned earlier?

Freedom of speech not only gives you the right - inside the boundaries of your country's law - to say what you want, but also others.

I hope the added bolding helped. If not, then I don't really care.

Because most of these people didn't live under conditions imposed by Hitler or had no close relations that were victims of his.

More flawed logic. That would mean Julius Caesar shouldn't be included for massacering one quarter of the population of Gaul, Genghis Khan ejected for his conquests etc.

Wrong.

Freedom of speech is a legal term that means an individual may speak openly and freely about their own government without fear of reprisal from said government.

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

Feel free to google up The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. :)

Because people are ignoramouses, undereducated, and unaware of reality. That is why. I suspect if you were able to check demographics, as age goes down, yes votes go up.

This is likely caused by two dynamics: the lessening of pain over time, and the increasing ignorance of today's youth to understand or try to assimilate in their conscious what has come before their arrival on the planet.

Or they are aware that it's just a game?

While I agree with you to some extent, you only confirm what I said - the majority of CivFanatics don't oppose Hitler in the game.

Are you doing this deliberately, or do you belong to the 49% mentioned earlier?

Yeah, I belong to the 49% mentioned earlier. What are you going to do about it?

Let me draw a separating line here. This side is for people who are normal and the other is for snobs who think they are so clever. Please go to the other side.

But, anyway, if everyone is allowed to insult everybody else and ignore whatever sensitivities there are, it's only a few steps down the slippery slope before it all explodes into a free-for-all state of violence.

More flawed logic. That would mean Julius Caesar shouldn't be included for massacering one quarter of the population of Gaul, Genghis Khan ejected for his conquests etc.

Well, if Civ was published during those times, yes.

The difference between you and me is the fact that you refuse to recognise the human element in things. And the fact that you're about 1 million times cleverer, of course :rolleyes:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

Feel free to google up The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. :)


Freedom of expression has a different legal status than freedom of speech, and no surpirse, since they are different concepts.




While I agree with you to some extent, you only confirm what I said - the majority of CivFanatics don't oppose Hitler in the game.


No. Only a majority of those that chose to reply. Again, a subtle, but distinct difference.

the user on this forum are broadly spread.
i dont think that you can have a better sample for a statistic poll :D

btw i also wanted them both to be in the game. i dont think that mao hitler stalin and napoleon are that much of a difference so that they cant be played.
and i never saw a leader who has such an ugly little upper-lip beard like who must not be named. ^^

and about the laws in germany (and austria) - prolly they wouldnt allow it :D

Do you think the Germans are idiots? You might just as well say: "You don't have to depict Shaka as black" or "You don't have to acknowledge that Victoria was queen of Great Britain". The Germans know what Hitler was, all right, even though some posters in these forums seem not to do so.

I am sorry about seeing your response so late, but I said that with the idea that removing the swastika seems to clear up quite a lot of problems in those areas that have the anti-nazi ban. There have been plenty of games in the last decades that refused to put swastikas on the planes for example, but the rest of the plane looked every bit as German otherwise; so there'sclearly a precedant for doing that sort of thing.

The forest is called Katyn.

The reason "nobody declared war on him" (Stalin) was that the US was not at war with anyone and wanted to stay that way, and Britain and France felt they had their hands full with Hitler.

I find the town is also called Katryn, but many places call the same place different names. I don't understand it really. Why can't we all call Moscow, Moskau, or everyone all call it the same thing in any case?

Because people are ignoramouses, undereducated, and unaware of reality. That is why. I suspect if you were able to check demographics, as age goes down, yes votes go up.

Also, I suspect that an increasing number of people who see a new Hitler thread just cast up their eyes and don't bother to read it or vote. The Hitler buffs are most likely overrepresented among wthose who jump into these discussions.

You know why I voted both yes?
Becasue I think that censorship is always a bad thing.
Whats more, I really dont belive that nazis movements grow out of Hitler being presented in historical games like Civ. It is just hypocrisy - as we cannot or dont want to solve some real problems, we tend to better hide whatever we dont like and pretend that everything is ok. Though nothing has been done, our mood rises up. So we stay in complacency.
If we dont want to see nazis back, we should talk about Hitler and nazism all around, to popularize the truth about his rule. And we should improve educational and social help system, instead of implementing any form of censoring.

You know why I voted both yes?
Becasue I think that censorship is always a bad thing.
Whats more, I really dont belive that nazis movements grow out of Hitler being presented in historical games like Civ. It is just hypocrisy - as we cannot or dont want to solve some real problems, we tend to better hide whatever we dont like and pretend that everything is ok. Though nothing has been done, our mood rises up. So we stay in complacency.
If we dont want to see nazis back, we should talk about Hitler and nazism all around, to popularize the truth about his rule. And we should improve educational and social help system, instead of implementing any form of censoring.

There's no censorship here. The only thing done by excluding Hitler from a popular computer game is to spare a thought for some people. Maybe 100 years from now, it would be okay, but not yet.

Not including Hitler as a playable faction in an official version of a game does not make people complacent. Nobody is proposing deleting Hitler from history curricula anywhere. That is where you learn about Hitler and the important lessons that chapter in history teaches us. Killing Hitler 100 times in a game will not teach you anything except 'fight fire with fire'. Only the civilopedia entry has any tangible educational value, but how many players care about what they read there?

They are not so important to their nations in the long history, and to the living people they're both nightmare!