I've been looking through the screenshots and I've noticed that it only shows the country names....which isnt as bad as I first thought it was...I just hope it has historical leaders like Hitler and Tojo. Second I noticed they took out the actual Nazi flag with the swastica, I can understand why but seriously its called history and all your doing is giving into the demands of a bunch of whiny pansies who can't understand history.

Well actually it's called a game.

Second you. The pansies who want to change history = teh losar. Hitler and Hirohito existed, deal.

Some idiots would protest that they're gloryfying Evil Ideologies. But for some reason Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, mass murderers of millions of innocents, have been in the game from the very beginning.

For some dumb reason Hitler is not in while Stalin is in. Maybe Firaxis has some pro-communist tendencies :P. I'm a Pole and I have nothing against adding Hitler to a computer game. Actually I would very much like that, as much as I dislike the HRE in the game I've been playing for 13 years now.

I don't see what the big deal is. It's just a game.

cool!
a hitler, HRE and polen thread!
;)

The big deal is it's history, and I'm pissed that someone has the nerve to edit it, and i'm pissed that others are whiny enough to even want to edit it.

If it's just a game, let's make George Bush rule Germany. Hey, it's just a video game! Calm down, don't be whiny! Let's put a nation of Aliens in the middle of Europe, it's just a video game. It's for fun!

It's just a game, no need to get angry over this. :)

But also I don't understand what exactly are the civs "West Balkan" and "East Balkan", I mean the Balkans are the most ethnically diverse region in Europe! Though it is possible that I looked at the wrong screenshot, don't know. It was on the official BtS site though.

If it's just a game, let's make George Bush rule Germany. Hey, it's just a video game! Calm down, don't be whiny! Let's put a nation of Aliens in the middle of Europe, it's just a video game. It's for fun!

People wouldn't buy it in that case. This is a commercial product, not a history lesson. But I guess every choice Firaxis made is completely wrong these days. Luckily one of their first decisions was to make the game as moddable as possible... so mod the game if you're not happy.

Mirc: It's just a game, no need to whine! Let's imagine there were "West Balkan" and "East Balkan" countries. Let's even imagine the Aliens started the WWII.

It's for fun!

El Koeno is absolutely right, the modding is the best feature about Civ 4, together with the AI made by one of the modders (not by Firaxis, remember).

I know I'll love the AI and I love the fact that we can mod the . .. .. .. . out, including the Holy Romans and the Native American Unique Totems :P.

Well - it´s forbidden in Germany to use Nazi symbols etc. except for educational purposes, that might explain to a degree.

Nazi symbols are present in computer games, just like communist symbols are.

It's forbidden in Poland to use communist/Nazi symbols, but it's no problem in case of a computer game (because it's for educational purposes and it's a historical simulation).

If you walk around waving a communist/Nazi flag, you will have a problem.

Well - it´s forbidden in Germany to use Nazi symbols etc. except for educational purposes, that might explain to a degree.

I say that's the answer.

I can't believe games with swastikas/Hitler in them are banned in Germany.

Exactly. While those would be dumb things to do. It's just a game NOT a documentry. If CIV was to take it to that extreme then I simply wouldn't buy the game. But, I can deal with a simple flag change. Anyone who can't deal with a flag change should stop crying themselves and face the fact that Firaxis chose not to include the flag.

If it's just a game, let's make George Bush rule Germany. Hey, it's just a video game! Calm down, don't be whiny! Let's put a nation of Aliens in the middle of Europe, it's just a video game. It's for fun!

Nazi symbols are present in computer games, just like communist symbols are.

It's forbidden in Poland to use communist/Nazi symbols, but it's no problem in case of a computer game (because it's for educational purposes and it's a historical simulation).

If you walk around waving a communist/Nazi flag, you will have a problem.

I think you can´t satisfy everyone from the German perspective in that regard. Of course it might seem weird ( but as everybody points out all the time, CIV is historically inaccurate in every instance, so it is NOT educational ;) ) , but I just don´t want to imagine foreign press commenting on Germans playing around with " Nazi stuff" in their spare time. Games in general seem to be suspicious nowadays anyway. Wouldn´t be good PR either :lol: .
Personally, I don´t care. Could have used the "real" symbols instead as well.

Well - it´s forbidden in Germany to use Nazi symbols etc. except for educational purposes, that might explain to a degree.

yes, what is the educational purposes when i crush my enemies with my mighty Panzers and rule the world?
it's a game and has nothing to do with education. it's not a book or something like that.

Yeah I also agree this is not an issue of top importance, now when we have the HRE and the Native Americans to deal with.

But I say real symbols are better than fake ones, and real leaders (Hitler) are better than fakes (the Evil Alien).

I think that fear of real symbols in historical games is ridiculous. Glorification of communism is forbidden in Poland, but I have never heard of any sort of complaint over a computer game with Stalin in it.

GIR: Yes, the uneducated Civ players are a problem on this forum. I say we should have people who really ruled the countries as leaders, we should have real symbols and real locations on the world map (if we play the world map).

We should have real unique units and proper buildings. We should not have an Idea (the HRE) as a Civ. We should not pretend an Evil Alien was the leader of Germany in 1939.

Mirc: It's just a game, no need to whine! Let's imagine there were "West Balkan" and "East Balkan" countries. Let's even imagine the Aliens started the WWII.

Well, I don't understand it, and I don't believe it's right, but I'm still not angry over it. :)

What I'm trying to say is not that it's not true this is inaccurate, but that it's not something that would ruin or magnify the experience of the game.

It's about not pandering to overly-sensitive people or trying to stay politically correct, it's about maximizing profits. If you don't like it or don't get it, you must be a communist.

To be honest, I wouldn't have given it any thought and just enjoyed playing it until somebody had to go and start a thread about it.

Those of you who want Firaxis to stand up and courageously throw all of this controversial stuff in to satisfy your commitment to the parts of history that matter to you obviously don't care if there's ever a Civ5. Unless they start adding in cool cars, guns and hookers, they really can't afford to be flippant about people's sensibilities.

BTW, why are all cities at size 4 in the WWII scenario?

Well - it´s forbidden in Germany to use Nazi symbols etc. except for educational purposes, that might explain to a degree.

That is correct.

If you really are so obsessed with swastikas, feel free to mod them in.

Firaxis is too lazy to do boring historical research (see also: the HRE).

1 - From a strictly historical POV, although some leaders were quite relevant during WWII, they weren't as relevant in the big scheme of things or when compared with another Great Leaders. Hitler ruled Germany trough a quite short period of time, and leaded it into ruin. Biskmark and Frederik shaped germany and influenciated its present way more than Hitler ever did. People must start wideing their horizonts and start accepting that history stretches far beyond WWII and History Channel. And yes, I also think that the inclussion of Stalin and Churchill was a stupid idea to beging with.

2- Sensibilities aside, such a game simply wouldn't be possible to commercialize in Germany and would face severe problems in many of the countries occupied by the nazis, not to mention Israel. The inclussion of a mediocre leader is not worth of such a hit to the game sales.

It is just a game, have fun. If you REALLY need to change something go into the XML in the mod and change it. That simple.

Firaxis is too lazy to do boring historical research (see also: the HRE).

You know what the irony of this is... it's a fan scenario. Not Firaxis.

Ok, somebody else is lazy too :P.

dutchking: You apparently can't understand that educated people can't have fun playing a WWII scenario with the Great Alien ruling Germany. For some people a game with the HRE and Germany together is just too disturbing and they won't play it.

Some people are more esthetically sensitive to others and they don't listen to . .. .. .. . music that most people listen to.

Some people are more historically aware and seeing East and West Balkans as countries + seeing no Poland in a WWII scenario is too annoying, not fun.

That's not fun for us, can't you understand this?

I think the comparison with music is the best one. I just can't stand most of the music on popular radio stations, I get extremely annoyed and I make people turn that . .. .. .. . off. Most people can't understand how that guy could react like that, how could it be SUCH a problem (hey, it's just music, relax!). I can't relax, I hate that, that's just a lot of worthless . .. .. .. ..

The HRE and Germany on the same world map is total . .. .. .. . to me too, do you know what I mean? It's NOT fun.

dutchking: You apparently can't understand that educated people can't have fun playing a WWII scenario with the Great Alien ruling Germany. For some people a game with the HRE and Germany together is just too disturbing and they won't play it.

Some people are more esthetically sensitive to others and they don't listen to . .. .. .. . music that most people listen to.

Some people are more historically aware and seeing East and West Balkans as countries + seeing no Poland in a WWII scenario is too annoying, not fun.

That's not fun for us, can't you understand this?

I think the comparison with music is the best one. I just can't stand most of the music on popular radio stations, I get extremely annoyed and I make people turn that . .. .. .. . off. Most people can't understand how that guy could react like that, how could it be SUCH a problem (hey, it's just music, relax!). I can't relax, I hate that, that's just a lot of worthless . .. .. .. ..

The HRE and Germany on the same world map is total . .. .. .. . to me too, do you know what I mean? It's NOT fun.

So... the point I got from this is that you're just as much of a creep about everything else as you are about this?

dutchking: You apparently can't understand that educated people can't have fun playing a WWII scenario with the Great Alien ruling Germany. For some people a game with the HRE and Germany together is just too disturbing and they won't play it.

Some people are more esthetically sensitive to others and they don't listen to . .. .. .. . music that most people listen to.

Some people are more historically aware and seeing East and West Balkans as countries + seeing no Poland in a WWII scenario is too annoying, not fun.

That's not fun for us, can't you understand this?

I think the comparison with music is the best one. I just can't stand most of the music on popular radio stations, I get extremely annoyed and I make people turn that . .. .. .. . off. Most people can't understand how that guy could react like that, how could it be SUCH a problem (hey, it's just music, relax!). I can't relax, I hate that, that's just a lot of worthless . .. .. .. ..

The HRE and Germany on the same world map is total . .. .. .. . to me too, do you know what I mean? It's NOT fun.


Since none of us give a damn about the HRE, and are pretty much going to have loads of fun with it, we're uneducated? Because that's really what I'm getting from you right now.

We call this high standards, as opposed to low standards. Some people expect more, and there are many of them among Civ players, because it's always been one of the more intelligent and challenging computer games. And look, it still didn't become an RTS.

If you don't like the HRE then mod it out. There is no consequence. Enless you play Multiplayer which in Civ Sucks.

It appears that those screenshots aren't final, as some of the units names' aren't capitalized. Though even if those shots aren't final, I'm sure the German flag won't change. :undecide:

If even Paradox Interactives (which is far more historical-accuracy-minded than Firaxis) elected to use Red-White-Black over Swastika in Hearts of Iron, and felt the need to ban advertisement of swastika mods (and screenshots thereof) from their forum, that should give you an idea of the odds of Hitler or the Swastika actually making it in for a far more mainstream game like Civ IV.

That,s the german laws for you.

It's kind of sad, though. Glossing over history because it offends some helps absolutely no one.

As far as I know, the german laws are about controling neo-nazism far more than about "not offending people".

Ok, somebody else is lazy too :P.

That's okay, no need to thank me for all my hard work the last 12 months.

Just be glad Poland IS in. It almost wasn't since it's a minor nation.

BTW, I remember who thanks me so I can make it up to them at a later date.

im sure someone will take the ideas and make a better WWII mod with both changed

eventually our society will become so pc that the holocaust will be where the nazis invited 6million jews for tea and kosher food

Its not about PC, or whitewashing the holocaust. Its that in Germany its illegal to play as Hitler in a game, or to display a swastika for anything other then educational purposes.

Have you ever seen the German Film Downfall? They had to film it in Russia because owning Nazi Paraphanelia is illegal, even if your not a Nazi.

wha? i thought "educated" people wouldn't get worked up over things like this...

Civilization is not just a game!

Its not about PC, or whitewashing the holocaust. Its that in Germany its illegal to play as Hitler in a game, or to display a swastika for anything other then educational purposes.

Have you ever seen the German Film Downfall? They had to film it in Russia because owning Nazi Paraphanelia is illegal, even if your not a Nazi.

It's not illegal for film crews in Germany to use Nazi stuff for a historical movie. Downfall was filmed in Russia because St. Petersburg architecture was better matching 1945 Berlin than today's berlin or any other german city..

It's not illegal for film crews in Germany to use Nazi stuff for a historical movie. Downfall was filmed in Russia because St. Petersburg architecture was better matching 1945 Berlin than today's berlin or any other german city..
I knew thats why they chose St. Petersburg in particular for that reason...but I heard there was issues with the uniforms. Guess I heard wrong then.

Anyway, the point still remains, in Germany it is illegal for any video game to allow you to play Hitler or display the swastika, so no, it should not be changed.

I can't believe games with swastikas/Hitler in them are banned in Germany.

Hitler is no problem, as long as his uniform doesnt contain swastikas...
its a 60 year old law preventing people from using nsdap symbols ANYWHERE...

It's not illegal for film crews in Germany to use Nazi stuff for a historical movie. Downfall was filmed in Russia because St. Petersburg architecture was better matching 1945 Berlin than today's berlin or any other german city..

there may be exceptions for critical historical films, but that does deifinetely not apply to a computer game where you can identify with the regime...


they couldnt sell the game in germany and austria with swastikas. period.

Thank you Dale, i for one am looking forward to playing this scenario!

The scenario looks a bit insipid - in fact the screenshots for several of the scenarios look a bit boring.

Its not about PC, or whitewashing the holocaust. Its that in Germany its illegal to play as Hitler in a game, or to display a swastika for anything other then educational purposes.

Have you ever seen the German Film Downfall? They had to film it in Russia because owning Nazi Paraphanelia is illegal, even if your not a Nazi.

You are most likely correct, although as an American, it is very disappointing to see an American company engage in self-censorship to follow the laws of a less progressive country.

Machts nichts, though, I never play the canned scenaria anyway!

I think it's sick that you can play Stalin while you can't play Hitler.

The big deal is it's history, and I'm pissed that someone has the nerve to edit it, and i'm pissed that others are whiny enough to even want to edit it.

So I guess you only play earth maps, and the moment anything veers from historical accuracy, it's editing, so you "exit to main menu" immediately?

I wouldn't be upset if Hitler was in there, but I find it odd that anyone's missing him. Now, if he's not modded in to the WWII scenario, that will be weird.

I can't believe games with swastikas/Hitler in them are banned in Germany.

Really? I mean, I disagree with the idea in principle, but it's not like it's an arbitrary restriction or anything.

And, I agree that Stalin and Mao should raise the same eyebrow Hitler would. That said, Hitler's murderous regime targeted specific groups much more than Stalin or Mao did, which I think strikes most people as being more evil than indiscriminately starving/brutalizing your population.

You are most likely correct, although as an American, it is very disappointing to see an American company engage in self-censorship to follow the laws of a less progressive country.


those laws were made to prevent the nsdap or a similar movement from rising up again after ww2... i think it's quite arrogant to call this "less progressive", let alone from a us-american point of view, a country where socialist movements where prosecuted and criminalized during the cold war...
at least over here half of the population doesnt believe in something called "ID", prosecute homosexuals and deny women their right for abortion, so so much for "progression"...

i think it's quite arrogant to call this "less progressive", let alone from an american point of view, a country where socialist movements where prosecuted and criminalized during the cold war...

I don't know many Americans (and I know a great many, being one myself) who laud McCarthy as a hero of rational thought and logical discourse. The man was a lunatic, and his political witch hunts are one of more than a few blemishes on our reputation. IMO, while I do disagree on principle with the ban on NAZI regalia, it makes sense in a way that McCarthyism never did. Plus, Germany's not my country, so far be it from me to criticize that restriction, especially since, based on my experiences while there in 2000, in general it does not want for freedom of expression.

Germany is more 'progressive' than the United States, not the opposite. Freedoms are much more restricted in the US, especially since Bush and the 9/11.

Dale,
The scenario looks fantastic, thanks.

What are the unit buttons seen in the screen shots? Tell me about them, please.

Dale,
The scenario looks fantastic, thanks.

What are the unit buttons seen in the screen shots? Tell me about them, please.

I think they are the actual button graphics. It looks like none of the buttons for any of the units/building have been made, so they used a filler button instead.
Also I don't like the German Infantry texture. :vomit:

I'm not going to rate the scenario until after I try it though.

The unit icons are NATO military symbols.

Well - it´s forbidden in Germany to use Nazi symbols etc. except for educational purposes, that might explain to a degree.
yes, what is the educational purposes when i crush my enemies with my mighty Panzers and rule the world?
it's a game and has nothing to do with education. it's not a book or something like that.
that's the point. you have the freedom to do what you want in the game. thats not historical and not educational. that means it is forbidden in germany (but i dont know it for certain)

The unit icons are NATO military symbols.

I like it.

So, there will be 3 WBS files in this scenario? Europe in 1936? Japan in 1936? And.... North Africa? D-Day?

Thanks for the feedback Dale.

The laws about not using Nazi Symbols in Germany is probably outdated now - but you have to understand that it made sense once.

In West Germany the whole Nazi Period wasn't really analyzed and done with once and for all until the late sixties - until then it simply was something of a tabu theme. Back then it was good that there was no chance for remaining Nazi Sympathizer (many good away without punishment, even judges) to flock to their old symbols.


Also note that we Germans did NOT made that law. It were the Allied Forces during the occupation. We simply kept that law. Probably we would have had to take quite a lot of criticism if we had repealed it.

And if you look at some of the stupid laws that are still in effect in some of the US States and the whole ID movement it seems strange to claim that we are less progressive.

The laws about not using Nazi Symbols in Germany is probably outdated now - but you have to understand that it made sense once.

When I was in Germany, we stayed with a couple who are friends of my fiance's father. They are in their mid-60s, and they had family in the Nazi party. I am Jewish and my Grandfather lost family in Poland during the holocaust. One night we had an amazing discussion about this, and both of them, especially the father, were crying. This is 60 years after the fact. One thing they mentioned that really bothered them was that people their kids' age have taken to wearing Nazi regalia as a way to rebel against their parents. They don't wear it because they support the ideology or anything, but that almost bothered these two more, because it means that elements of Naziism are becoming acceptable again.

So, again, while I disagree with the law in principle, I don't agree that it's less relevant now than it was 20, 40, or 60 years ago. Even here in America we still have neo-Nazi rallies and such (and I whole-heartedly support their right to have them and to hate me for my heritage).

Ammar: what is your take on their concern about kids wearing Nazi regalia?

Also, the ID movement is ridiculous, agreed, but things like "free speech zones" are far worse, as they fly directly in the face of the Constitution and the rights we are guaranteed. "Free Speech Zones" are but one example of how the Bush admin uses doublespeak and seems to view 1984 as a manual for running a country. The thing about ID is, the government theoretically reflects the will of the people, and as much as it pains me to say it, there are enough people who believe it in certain areas to get ID supporters into the local government. That's the thing about representative gov't: it's only as progressive as the population it represents. Implementation of ID-supporting policies is not, by default, evidence of a broken system. In some cases, it's the opposite.

excuse my ignorance, but what the hell are "free speech zones"?

excuse my ignorance, but what the hell are "free speech zones"?

Yeah, in the US our whole country is a "free speech zone". What the hell are "free speech zones"? If you want to (well not you cause your probably foreign) you can go out in front of the White House and scream absurd things and no one will arrest you or anything...:lol:

Ammar: what is your take on their concern about kids wearing Nazi regalia?


I can certainly understand it. I wouldn't like to see kids or adults running around in Nazi Uniforms. Would make me very uncomfortable.

But I am not certain whether repealing that law would have negative effects. You can mostly identify Neonazis by their clothing anyhow. Still it might give a sense of social acceptance to Nazism, which is not good. I would probably keep the laws forbidding wearing Nazi Regalia.

With "outdates laws" I mostly meant those forbidding Nazi Symbols to be shown casually in games and movies. Not allowing the symbols to be glorifies is something I wholeheartedly support.

Yeah, in the US our whole country is a "free speech zone". What the hell are "free speech zones"? If you want to (well not you cause your probably foreign) you can go out in front of the White House and scream absurd things and no one will arrest you or anything...

Apparently you didn't read my post. I'm American. I see people protesting outside the White House on a semi-regular basis (live near DC).

And, if you don't remember those cages called "free speech zones" that were put up for protesters MILES from campaign rallies during the 2004 election cycle, well, you better check on your civil rights.

Free Speech Zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone)

With "outdates laws" I mostly meant those forbidding Nazi Symbols to be shown casually in games and movies. Not allowing the symbols to be glorifies is something I wholeheartedly support.

Gotcha. That's probably pretty much from where they were coming, too.

I can certainly understand it. I wouldn't like to see kids or adults running around in Nazi Uniforms. Would make me very uncomfortable.

Just go to Vegas if you change your mind...:lol:
:joke:
Apparently you didn't read my post. I'm American. I see people protesting outside the White House on a semi-regular basis (live near DC).

And, if you don't remember those cages called "free speech zones" that were put up for protesters MILES from campaign rallies during the 2004 election cycle, well, you better check on your civil rights.

Ahh, I'm weird...with all this stuff about the Nazis I thought you were German...

No, I just happen to know some things that happen in other countries ;).

Yes, I agree that we definitely needed another "Hitler should be in the game thread." Its so annoying to have to do a search to find one of the other 87 threads with the exact same topic. I think it should be a forum rule that someone must start a new one at least once a week until nobody plays the game anymore.

I was afraid another topic like this would show up.

The arguments have already been said and I won't repeat them but them bottom line if Firaxis/Take Two is a business and wants to maximize their profits by getting as many sales as possible while avoiding actions that would lose sales. You can disagree with that view and it's fine but you might feel different if you were the one running the company and had shareholders to answer to.

Anyways Dale had to follow Firaxis' rules to get his mod included with BtS and I'm pretty sure if anybody else here were in the same situation they would do the same thing. Who would throw away a chance to get their work included an official expansion pack over a few details that Firaxis doesn't really have control over.

I'm positive that somebody will quickly make a mod to make the WWII scenario more historically accurate.

BTW Dale are you allowed to say who is the leader is Japan going to be? I'm assuming it's not Hirohito due to Firaxis being leery to put an Japanese emperor in Civ. Would it be Tojo? Anyways keep up the good work.

Just a game...

It's kind of sad, though. Glossing over history because it offends some helps absolutely no one.
It only applies to media like a computer game.

I assure you, go into any German library or bookstore and you'll have no trouble finding material on the Second World War. Possibly more than anyone else in the world, the German people are very aware of what happened in that period.

The Germans aren't "glossing over history" - they're restricting symbols of hate which could be used for a resurgence of similar movements.

Well if Poland isnt in the WWII Mod then you know it will never be in the game, and all these whining threads will be easily dismissed :)

I have never seen any game simulating WWII without Poland in it, it's more ridiculous than one without France in it. It's possible not to have the US in, because that was never a theater.

Firaxis is too lazy to do boring historical research (see also: the HRE).

Is it idiotic?

You said that! :P

Possibly more than anyone else in the world, the German people are very aware of what happened in that period.

The Germans aren't "glossing over history" - they're restricting symbols of hate which could be used for a resurgence of similar movements.

Very true. They have all kinds of memorials erected to Jewish people there. A professor from my college was German and his father was a Nazi. The professor specialized in German-Jewish relationships, and happened to be in Berlin while my fiance and I were there (same trip I mentioned before). He took us on an INCREDIBLE tour of the monuments to Jews and to the area where the Jewish quarter was before the war. Absolutely the Germans are not sweeping things under the rug. Their effort to remain mindful of the past is nothing short of inspiring.

What's this talk about no Poland then?

I've been looking through the screenshots and I've noticed that it only shows the country names....which isnt as bad as I first thought it was...I just hope it has historical leaders like Hitler and Tojo. Second I noticed they took out the actual Nazi flag with the swastica, I can understand why but seriously its called history and all your doing is giving into the demands of a bunch of whiny pansies who can't understand history.

Screenshots from the WW2 scenario? Where???????

I'm positive that somebody will quickly make a mod to make the WWII scenario more historically accurate.

I will be releasing an add-on straight after release to "fix" a lot of things and add new content that didn't make the release.

BTW Dale are you allowed to say who is the leader is Japan going to be? I'm assuming it's not Hirohito due to Firaxis being leery to put an Japanese emperor in Civ. Would it be Tojo? Anyways keep up the good work.

It's not Tojo. :)

BTW, why does it matter so much who leads a nation in RtW? Leaders don't make gameplay. Are you saying you'd prefer aesthetics over gameplay?

I think the fact that denying the Holocaust is a crime in those countries proves that they're not "glossing over" their history.

As for some of the other issues:

While I think Dale was (rightfully) pissed with Ishon, I don't think they sort of reluctantly decided to include Poland in the game since it's a "minor nation". Poland has to be in a proper WWII scenario unless it's set in mid-1940 like the original Civ2 scenario was. It being invaded was what prompted the declaration of war from Britain and France. Grouping it with other smaller countries that quickly fell wouldn't really work either with a starting date in 1936. There was just too many different possibilities and ways that it could've turned out starting that far back.

As someone said, it's probably not done yet (or at least as of when these screenshots were taken) which is probably why 1) All the cities are size 4, and 2) None of the unit names are capitalized.

EDIT: I also think the US flag would be better displayed turned on its side with the blue at the top and the stripes running vertically since it looks really scrunched up facing the way it is.

I can't find out where the WW2 screenies are hidden! I demand to know!!!! :mad:

^ Official BtS site. :)

^ Official BtS site. :)


Thank you! So they have finally opened that site. Nice!

The WW2 scen doesnt look that bad actually, I feared it was totally dumbed down. :) I suspect it will be fun to play even....

Thank you! So they have finally opened that site. Nice!

The WW2 scen doesnt look that bad actually, I feared it was totally dumbed down. :) I suspect it will be fun to play even....

If anything it's more strategically complex. You like to bomb defenses OR production facilities OR civil buildings? ;)

BTW, why does it matter so much who leads a nation in RtW? Leaders don't make gameplay. Are you saying you'd prefer aesthetics over gameplay?

Well personally other than for curiosities sake I don't really care that much about who the leaders are. Having them called 'German Leader' and 'Japanese Leader' would be fine with me.

However I think aesthetics in general is an important part of the Civ experience. Thats why people are always requesting stuff like culturally diverse units and city styles or stuff like the throne room. None of this stuff really effects gameplay but I think having it there somehow makes a better game.

So I think that in general while gameplay is king, stuff like aesthetics and historical flavor, while not effecting gameplay help to make Civ a better game. I could live without it but I'm glad it's there. Or in other words while I would gladly install the 'historical accuracy' mod I wouldn't complain if such a thing didn't exist.

btw Dale,

I believe these little snippets of info about the much anticipated scenario do qualify under the Geneva convention as torture! Please tell us more about the scenario!

As the scenarios creator seems to participate in this thread, let me say that it looks great indeed and that I´m looking forward to it a lot :thumbsup: !11

They need to put Hitler in, period. He was in WWII (obviously) and was a major player. The swastistka is just a symbol, people need to realize it is a just a game and it was history and not to hide from it.

I don't hide from the fact our current president is a warmongering moron, just like German's shouldn't hide that they had an insane leader. History is history.

Have you bothered reading the whole thread, Stexe?

It's been clearly explained that the German law is not about "hiding they had a insane leader". It's about preventing a resurgence of the murderous movement the insane leader led.

It only applies to media like a computer game.

I assure you, go into any German library or bookstore and you'll have no trouble finding material on the Second World War. Possibly more than anyone else in the world, the German people are very aware of what happened in that period.

The Germans aren't "glossing over history" - they're restricting symbols of hate which could be used for a resurgence of similar movements.
Doesn't it seem slightly ridiculous that a mere swastika in a game (that is in no way promoting the values of Nazism) could be "used for a resurgence of similar movements?"

Based on this, couldn't anything be omitted then because it inspires hate? Why not take the hammer and sickle out of the game (Communist tech, at least in vanilla Civ IV; I don't have Warlords yet. :(); doesn't that represent as much evil as the swastika?

And yes, I fully understand that Firaxis is appealing to the German law so as to maximize profit; I just don't think it is right.

It's probably far easier and clearer to just write a law saying "No Swastika in games" than one that say "No Swastika in games if it could encourage sympathies toward the nazi movement".

Because that't the issue here - a game where you kill nazis likely wouldn't offend most German lawmakers in and of itself, but a game where you can "be a nazi", complete with swastika, etc (and this is what the WW2 mod would be) is something else entirely.

But as I said, if you start putting subjective limits in laws (like "if it could foster sympathy toward..."), then the law get murkier, and a lot less useful. So it's much better in the long run in this case to have a stricter, but clearer law.

It was about time for BtS forum to get it's own YAAHD discussion (=Yet Another Adolf Hitler Debate) -- PSBITG (Poland Should Be In The Game) has been winning so far.

Based on this, couldn't anything be omitted then because it inspires hate? Why not take the hammer and sickle out of the game (Communist tech, at least in vanilla Civ IV; I don't have Warlords yet. :(); doesn't that represent as much evil as the swastika?

And yes, I fully understand that Firaxis is appealing to the German law so as to maximize profit; I just don't think it is right.

You don't think the German law is right or you don't think Firaxis's compliance with that law is right? If it's the former, then I might agree with you... on the other hand, I can't really say because I don't live there. If I hang up the flag of a former regime in my town, I'm saying: "I want to tax your tea!" If someone flies a Nazi flag in Germany over their house, they're saying: "I want to conquer the world and massacre billions!" It seems to me that lifting the ban is good in the interest of free speech, which I hold to be a pretty sacred thing. In the United States, speech is protected unless it represents a clear and present danger to the government and society. When the German law was put into place, these symbols definitely did represent a clear and present danger... do they today? I don't know. I have heard there is a resurgence of Nazism among the youth of Germany (and the youth of Europe in general in fact), but I don't know if they are so strong and so determined as to try to create a Fourth Reich. Do I want to take that chance though? That's for the people of Germany to decide since they know better than me as an outside observer.

Regarding the hammer and sickle... yes, it's definitely a symbol that perhaps offends some people and represents evil incarnate to others. But Firaxis will only remove it if there is a country out there that bans this symbol (like a former Soviet bloc country might) that represents a significant market to them. Firaxis could choose to include the swatstika... and lose money. They are a business and to do this to satisfy the demands a few people is to me contrary to the whole point of being in business.

TO ALL: But to some how claim that the reason why Firaxis includes the hammer and sickle (and not the swatstika) is because Sid and his team are sympathetic to communism is I think jumping the gun to say the least.

Hey, does the game simulate the Holocaust? Are there Jewish population units you need to round up and exterminate by deploying special einsatzgruppen units? A death camp improvement you can build? An Auschwitz-Birkenau wonder which reduces population growth but causes nation-wide happiness boosts? Do you get culture bonuses (at the cost of production) when playing as Germany for freeing yourself of the untermenschen drain on your national lifeblood? How about a unique Final Solution victory condition?

Hey, it's history. Can't gloss over it! That'd be censorship.

Guys. Separate to and above "censorship" there is such a thing as taste. Just because portraying something isn't a criminal offense doesn't mean it's a good idea. An overly realistic portrayal of the Nazi regime crosses taste and sensitivity boundaries for many people. That's why games like Civ IV and Hearts of Iron shy away from direct portrayals of the Nazis and turn the Germans into something more generic -- a strategic player in a game of grand strategy.

They're strategy simulations, they inherently involve some level of abstraction and how you do that abstraction is of no small importance. I for one think it's in the interests of good taste and a good game to edit out the less savoury parts of WW2--if you're not going to show it in all its horrors just treat it like an abstract simulation. Maybe you draw the line on the other side of a Nazi flag, but many people don't. You can't pretend the Nazis are a "normal" civilisation and portraying them as such by including them as "just another force" tends to normalise them in exactly the way having special cultural taboos about them (as the closest thing we've ever had to pure evil) prevents. You wanna censor and "gloss over" history? Including Hitler and the Nazis as "normal" without special game mechanics like I mentioned in the first paragraph is the BEST and MOST EFFECTIVE way to "gloss over" and distort history.

I didn't read. Poland isn't in the scenerio? If it isn't. WTF? Poland has the same right to be in as France.

I didn't read. Poland isn't in the scenerio? If it isn't. WTF? Poland has the same right to be in as France.

It is in the scenario. Dale debunked that myth earlier in the thread.

Hey, does the game simulate the Holocaust? Are there Jewish population units you need to round up and exterminate by deploying special einsatzgruppen units? A death camp improvement you can build? An Auschwitz-Birkenau wonder which reduces population growth but causes nation-wide happiness boosts? Do you get culture bonuses (at the cost of production) when playing as Germany for freeing yourself of the untermenschen drain on your national lifeblood? How about a unique Final Solution victory condition?

Hey, it's history. Can't gloss over it! That'd be censorship.

Guys. Separate to and above "censorship" there is such a thing as taste. Just because portraying something isn't a criminal offense doesn't mean it's a good idea. An overly realistic portrayal of the Nazi regime crosses taste and sensitivity boundaries for many people. That's why games like Civ IV and Hearts of Iron shy away from direct portrayals of the Nazis and turn the Germans into something more generic -- a strategic player in a game of grand strategy.

They're strategy simulations, they inherently involve some level of abstraction and how you do that abstraction is of no small importance. I for one think it's in the interests of good taste and a good game to edit out the less savoury parts of WW2--if you're not going to show it in all its horrors just treat it like an abstract simulation. Maybe you draw the line on the other side of a Nazi flag, but many people don't. You can't pretend the Nazis are a "normal" civilisation and portraying them as such by including them as "just another force" tends to normalise them in exactly the way having special cultural taboos about them (as the closest thing we've ever had to pure evil) prevents. You wanna censor and "gloss over" history? Including Hitler and the Nazis as "normal" without special game mechanics like I mentioned in the first paragraph is the BEST and MOST EFFECTIVE way to "gloss over" and distort history.

This is an amazing point! Well-said!

Indeed, all games have abstractions. And I noticed nobody advocating throwing in the death camps and the gestapo... you're completely right.

Regarding the hammer and sickle... yes, it's definitely a symbol that perhaps offends some people and represents evil incarnate to others.
Difference is, though, that the Hammer & Sickle represented the ideology that the Soviet Union claimed to adhere to- socialism- while in fact they made it standard practice to corrupt this ideology beyond belief. The swastika, while of of course a symbol that pre-dates Nazism by millenia, was always used by the Nazis to represent an ideology that they stuck to quite rigidly.
In short, the Hammer & Sickle, like the Crucifix or Islamic Crescent, represents an ideology that is perfectly legitimate but has been abused, while the swastika (when used in this manner) represents an ideology that is inherently evil.
Please remember, though, that I am not supporting the censorship of the swastika- I actually disagree with it- I'm just illustrating the differences in the symbols, to provide an explanation for the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other.

Unless you're going to argue that Brezhnev or Gorbachev and the communist and socialist combatants in the Spanish Civil War and those who fought for the 8 hour day were all equivalent to Hitler and Nazi Germany... the Hammer and Sickle (and communism in general) has a MUCH broader meaning than the Swastika.

"Socialism/communism = Nazism" is bunk, (edit: and so is the Totalitarian Thesis in most of its applications). It's post-Cold War triumphalism of the most facile and spurious kind. Generic fascism represented by something like the Spanish Falangist Yoke and Arrows or Italian fasci would be a better analogy.

Socialism/communism = Nazism is bunk, it's post-Cold War triumphalism of the most facile and spurious kind.
Agreed. That misconception is the remnants of a black-and-white world view held only by reactionaries and the ignorant.

Difference is, though, that the Hammer & Sickle represented the ideology that the Soviet Union claimed to adhere to- socialism- while in fact they made it standard practice to corrupt this ideology beyond belief. The swastika, while of of course a symbol that pre-dates Nazism by millenia, was always used by the Nazis to represent an ideology that they stuck to quite rigidly.
In short, the Hammer & Sickle, like the Crucifix or Islamic Crescent, represents an ideology that is perfectly legitimate but has been abused, while the swastika (when used in this manner) represents an ideology that is inherently evil.
Please remember, though, that I am not supporting the censorship of the swastika- I actually disagree with it- I'm just illustrating the differences in the symbols, to provide an explanation for the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other.

Well, I think that our cultural biases play an important part here.

I mean, the Hammer and Sickle to the eastern bloc countries (for many of them anyway) represents decades of oppression that was even worse than the Nazis only because the Soviets had time to do their dirty work whereas the Nazis were pushed out in a relatively brief time. The Soviets started brutalizing them so quickly that they didn't have a lot of time to be grateful that they'd been freed by the psychotic murderers that'd just been ousted from their countries.

To us in the United States, the hammer and sickle reminds us of the Cold War and our decades long stand off with Russia. Sure, we hated the Soviets and we condemned communism as evil, but we never felt the oppression of the Soviets personally. We never had our rights taken away like the people of eastern Europe did. So for that reason, Firaxis didn't appreciate how tasteless it was to Eastern Europe to include Stalin.

In spite of all the rhetoric and denunciations of the Soviet Union over the years, the Americans have focused on the Nazis in mass media much moreso than the Soviets. I mean, as a kid, Hitler was taught to us as evil made flesh on earth. He wasn't even like a person... he was this almost other-worldly force of destruction. I think, for that reason, watching some of those home movies of his on the History Channel is so disturbing: because he was a real person! He was, at the end of the day, a human man.

I think the reason why we had that reaction to the Nazis and not to Hitler is that western societies tend to be pragmatic societies. We understood that the Soviets oppressed people for power. We got that. While we rejected socialism, we understood that the ideals of socialism were not the reality. We understood the greed of corrupt bureaucrats throwing dissenters in the gulag to protect their own interests. We could comprehend evil for the sake of personal gain. But the Nazis... they oppressed people for the sake of ideology. They murdered people even when it was sapping their resources that could've been used to stave off defeat. That kind of fanaticism is something we don't understand well... that's my theory anyway.

So in spite of the fact that Stalin and Mao killed more people, Hitler is the epitome of evil in the USA. The thought of him being a little cartoon character in a game turns some people's stomaches. Personally, I'd rather not have to look at him in the course of a game. I can't just look at him like just another character in the game. That is our cultural bias. I'm sure in other parts of the world, they condemn his acts as monstrous but they still view him in what is probably a more realistic light.

As for the swatstika, it is unfortunate that a symbol used for thousands of years as a benign symbol could have irrevocably been turned into a symbol of hate and evil. We can't separate it. If they made a Tibetan civ and it had swatstikas in the background, we could remind ourselves that they do have swatstikas in Buddhist countries that has nothing to do with Nazism, but we'll be thinking about it every time we see it.

That's also a very good point. I suspect it also has something to do with present anti-Russian sentiment in Eastern Europe, particularly among those less attuned to the finer points of history (or even the fact that Hitler and Naziism literally viewed Eastern Europeans as less than human, to be enslaved or exterminated as was expedient). But again, that's still cultural.

In Western Europe the equation is simpler still. Nazism hits close to home because of the "We did this" factor. It was pure evil, on an industrialised scale, at the heart of a modern, rational European state.

That's also a very good point. I suspect it also has something to do with present anti-Russian sentiment in Eastern Europe, particularly among those less attuned to the finer points of history (or even the fact that Hitler and Naziism literally viewed Eastern Europeans as less than human).

Well, the fact that there's actually a growing neo-Nazi movement in Russia disgusts me as well. I mean, the heart of their ideology seems to be that a strong sense of Russian nationalism... and yet, the Russians expended vast resources including millions of lives to defeat those bastards and then these kids have the nerve to take up their cause as that of Russian nationalism! I don't know how they justify it in their minds honestly...

And there seems to be this prevailing attitude from the eastern European countries like: "Hitler wasn't as bad for us as the Soviets!" And that's true... he didn't have time. To be sure, the Nazis would not have oppressed the eastern Europeans for almost fifty years like the Soviets did... but that's because fifty years later, there'd have been no eastern Europeans to oppress.

Some idiots would protest that they're gloryfying Evil Ideologies. But for some reason Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, mass murderers of millions of innocents, have been in the game from the very beginning.

For some dumb reason Hitler is not in while Stalin is in. Maybe Firaxis has some pro-communist tendencies :P. I'm a Pole and I have nothing against adding Hitler to a computer game. Actually I would very much like that, as much as I dislike the HRE in the game I've been playing for 13 years now.For the 1,536,789,346th time: Stalin and Mao had successful governments, Hitler didn't. The rule of Hitler resulted in the total destruction of his regime, the total conquest of Germany, and the partitioning of the country - that is not a success.

I mean, the Hammer and Sickle to the eastern bloc countries (for many of them anyway) represents decades of oppression that was even worse than the Nazis only because the Soviets had time to do their dirty work whereas the Nazis were pushed out in a relatively brief time. The Soviets started brutalizing them so quickly that they didn't have a lot of time to be grateful that they'd been freed by the psychotic murderers that'd just been ousted from their countries.
The USSR was authoritarian and those who resisted would be brutally supressed. However, Nazi Germany was a totalitarian racial-fascist state. The Nazis had all of the negative characteristics of the USSR and more. In the USSR anyone, of any ethnicity, could have a life, a career, and a family - you simply needed to cooperate with the regime. In Nazi Germany some people couldn't enjoy life and family no matter how subservient they made themselves to the state. That's a huge difference - and it makes the Nazis much more evil than the USSR.

So for that reason, Firaxis didn't appreciate how tasteless it was to Eastern Europe to include Stalin.
It seems as though you fail to appreciate the reverence many Russians still hold for Stalin and his accomplishments. Yes, Stalin is hated by many but he is also respected by many as well.

Second I noticed they took out the actual Nazi flag with the swastica, I can understand why but seriously its called history and all your doing is giving into the demands of a bunch of whiny pansies who can't understand history.


YAY chaz1356!!!!!!!!!

NO, I AM NOT A NAZI. Hitler was ordained by the devil, I want to get it straight that just because I think the swastika should have been included, that does NOT make me a blood sucking evil NationalSocialist pig. I just agree that Chaz1356 has the correct idea on facing the reality of history.

those laws were made to prevent the nsdap or a similar movement from rising up again after ww2... i think it's quite arrogant to call this "less progressive", let alone from a us-american point of view,

Not a bit. If the only thing keeping a return of the Nazis is restricting the freedom of speech, then it's only a matter of time before the Germans return to authoritarianism.

a country where socialist movements where prosecuted and criminalized during the cold war...
at least over here half of the population doesnt believe in something called "ID", prosecute homosexuals and deny women their right for abortion, so so much for "progression"...

Thanks for the non sequitur -- it doesn't really address my argument, but it does undercut your own credibility.

Difference is, though, that the Hammer & Sickle represented the ideology that the Soviet Union claimed to adhere to- socialism- while in fact they made it standard practice to corrupt this ideology beyond belief. The swastika, while of of course a symbol that pre-dates Nazism by millenia, was always used by the Nazis to represent an ideology that they stuck to quite rigidly.
In short, the Hammer & Sickle, like the Crucifix or Islamic Crescent, represents an ideology that is perfectly legitimate but has been abused, while the swastika (when used in this manner) represents an ideology that is inherently evil.
Please remember, though, that I am not supporting the censorship of the swastika- I actually disagree with it- I'm just illustrating the differences in the symbols, to provide an explanation for the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other.

Well put Traitorfish! I haven't read through the entire thread, but was surprised to see the debate over the sickle and hammer vs. the swastika. The sickle and hammer are merely worker's tools that represent the unity of the industrial and agricultural laborers. Despite the atrocious history of some of communist leaders, the tools do represent hatred against a particular people. The swastika is a symbol of ethnic cleansing and genocide. There is really no comparison.

Difference is, though, that the Hammer & Sickle represented the ideology that the Soviet Union claimed to adhere to- socialism- while in fact they made it standard practice to corrupt this ideology beyond belief. The swastika, while of of course a symbol that pre-dates Nazism by millenia, was always used by the Nazis to represent an ideology that they stuck to quite rigidly.
In short, the Hammer & Sickle, like the Crucifix or Islamic Crescent, represents an ideology that is perfectly legitimate but has been abused, while the swastika (when used in this manner) represents an ideology that is inherently evil.
Please remember, though, that I am not supporting the censorship of the swastika- I actually disagree with it- I'm just illustrating the differences in the symbols, to provide an explanation for the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other.

I don't agree about the religious stuff, though I agree in terms of the communist vs. facist symbols. The fact of the matter is that the communists did very little of what they promised to do, and betrayed themselves from within. However the Facists did everything they said they would do, surprisingly, and it caused mass extermination.

Crosses and Cresents, while not inherently evil, are inherent markers of irrational supersition and thus contribute to illogical and I daresay flawed behaviour.

In short, the Hammer & Sickle, like the Crucifix or Islamic Crescent, represents an ideology that is perfectly legitimate but has been abused, while the swastika (when used in this manner) represents an ideology that is inherently evil

So you don't think that Communism is inherintly evil? Communism denies the natural right to own, forces the mind in a pre-set direction, discriminates and kills those that oppose it. Religions don't have this set out in their ideals; Communism and Nazism do. Both ARE inherintly evil and vile. The Hammer and sickle should have the same force on the mind as the swastika; more were killed in its name than in the name of the (Nazi) swastika.

The USSR was authoritarian and those who resisted would be brutally supressed. However, Nazi Germany was a totalitarian racial-fascist state. The Nazis had all of the negative characteristics of the USSR and more. In the USSR anyone, of any ethnicity, could have a life, a career, and a family - you simply needed to cooperate with the regime. In Nazi Germany some people couldn't enjoy life and family no matter how subservient they made themselves to the state. That's a huge difference - and it makes the Nazis much more evil than the USSR.

At what point did I say that the USSR was worse or that they were even equally as bad as the Nazis? I was talking about perceptions. I said quite clearly that the length of time that the Soviets ruled over eastern Europe had contributed to this attitude that the Soviets were worse than the Nazis. I also distinctly said that if the Nazis had kept the territories they'd taken, they'd have made a desert of eastern Europe...

It seems as though you fail to appreciate the reverence many Russians still hold for Stalin and his accomplishments. Yes, Stalin is hated by many but he is also respected by many as well.

I haven't failed to appreciate it at all. In fact, a former professor told me about his visit to the republic of Georgia where one of the few statues of Stalin remains. When he asked the tour guide why they kept this monument to a brutal dictator, the tour guide said: "We love Stalin! He killed more Russians than we ever could've!"

No, communism does not preach the extermination of a particular people. Karl Marx never claimed that Jews, Africans, or anyone else needs to be completely eliminated.

So you don't think that Communism is inherintly evil? Communism denies the natural right to own, forces the mind in a pre-set direction, discriminates and kills those that oppose it. Religions don't have this set out in their ideals; Communism and Nazism do. Both ARE inherintly evil and vile. The Hammer and sickle should have the same force on the mind as the swastika; more were killed in its name than in the name of the (Nazi) swastika.

Most of the points you state about Communism are not stated tenets of Communism. There are, I believe at least, the practical result of a Communist system, but that does not mean that the Communist philosophy is inherently destructive. In fact, I think most people who adhere to Communism or Socialism have good intentions in mind, but these systems in practice just don't work. Communism, as an ideal, has nothing inherently evil in it, but the way I put it: Communism can only work in an ideal world, but in an ideal world, you wouldn't need Communism.

do people not get that Civ is supposed to be sort of like history but not exactly. everyone gets all upset when really they should be happy Firaxis provides us with such wonderful games. and we shoudnt bash (directly or indirectly) Firaxis for some things that arent exactly historical

So you don't think that Communism is inherintly evil? Communism denies the natural right to own, forces the mind in a pre-set direction, discriminates and kills those that oppose it. Religions don't have this set out in their ideals; Communism and Nazism do. Both ARE inherintly evil and vile. The Hammer and sickle should have the same force on the mind as the swastika; more were killed in its name than in the name of the (Nazi) swastika.

There is no natural right to own anything, many primitive societies have no notion of ownership.

Religion's don't kill those who disagree? You've never heard of Islam or medieval christianity? The killing with religion is even more pointless, there is no goal other than some misguided fantasy about an imaginary friend.

What world you live in?

No, Communism doesn't preach the extermination of any group of people

Yes they did-religous believers and capitalists

Karl marx did not preach the extermination of jews
Yes he did; "On the Jewish question", various letters to Engles.

Most of the points you state about Communism are not stated tenets of Communism

Yes they are. Ever read the manifesto? It wants to force people to be communists and Marx had complete disregard for human rights. He even denied the exisance of human rights. He also wanted to wipe out the religions, even if genocide was needed (not in the manifesto, but still evident).

Newsflash: I want to wipe out the religions too. Dosen't mean I want to kill them all, but it would be nicer if we stopped pretending "god" existed.

Want to know the solution to the middle east's problems? World Atheisim.

He wanted to destroy capitalism and believed religion was the "opiate of the masses," but he never preached exterminating an entire people! Comparing Marx and Hitler is absolutely ridiculous... Marx was a philosopher and a revolutionary, but he never participated in any form of mass murder.

Yes he did; "On the Jewish question", various letters to Engles.

You don't think that he himself being of Jewish descent might have made him less inclined to exterminate Jews?

There is no natural right to own anything, many primitive societies have no notion of ownership.

Religion's don't kill those who disagree? You've never heard of Islam or medieval christianity? The killing with religion is even more pointless, there is no goal other than some misguided fantasy about an imaginary friend.

What world you live in?

Yes, there is the natural right to private ownership. You work, and that work is yours. You own your labor and the fruits of it. You sell it for the means to survive, or use it to your own advantage. Capitalists build themselves up form the bottom (for the most part). Communism thinks it can force you to share your labor, even if you'd rather use your labor to help yourself, you can't. You can't choose what to do with yourself. And if you speak out, the commisar will shoot you. This is allowed in the manifesto, as it says all capitalists will be suprresed in the dictatorship of the proletariant, which, as a natural part of history, will be a political structure that will supress capitalsim. And yes, relgions have had killing problems. But for the most part, bibles and religous texts don't call for mass revoultion, death, etc. And "Jihad" in the Koran is a holy struggle, and that doesn't mean war (nessesarily; depending on interpretation).

You don't think that he himself being of Jewish descent might have made him less inclined to exterminate Jews?

No, his idea of all inheritance issues abolished covered that up for him.

He never participated in mass murder

No-he betrayed his own philosophy of philosophers acutally participating in what they preached. And he bleieved that government was meant to suppress another class-so he figured the proleatriant dictatorship would do to the capitalists the same thing he thought the capitalists did to the proletairn; killing them. And then he believed that when capitalists were all gone, the world would be a happy fairy flowery place. Yay, lets go play in the medow kind of place. :rolleyes:

Yes he did; "On the Jewish question", various letters to Engles.

Okay, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Have you ever actually read "On the Jewish question" ? Clearly not. Marx does not argue for sending all Jews to a concentration camp and killing them off there. He says that Jews should stop asking for the emancipation of Jews, and instead the Jews should cooperate with other Prussians and seek a collective emancipation.

"We must emancipate ourselves before we can emancipate others." Karl Marx, "On the Jewish Question" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/)

Yes, there is the natural right to private ownership. You work, and that work is yours. You own your labor and the fruits of it. You sell it for the means to survive, or use it to your own advantage. Capitalists build themselves up form the bottom (for the most part).

I've beek fcuked over by two of my employers over the years, in major ways. Your talk is nice, but it is something that comes out the rear end and rhymes with hit.

Communism thinks it can force you to share your labor, even if you'd rather use your labor to help yourself, you can't. You can't choose what to do with yourself. And if you speak out, the commisar will shoot you.This is allowed in the manifesto, as it says all capitalists will be suprresed in the dictatorship of the proletariant, which, as a natural part of history, will be a political structure that will supress capitalsim.

I am quite familiar about socialist literature, and you must take those things with a grain of salt. The manesto was meant to get people angry - that was the PRIMARY PURPOSE of the document. The idea was to wake people up - to show them in clear and vigourous language that they were being exploited and had by those richer and more powerful than they.

You've no doubt seen the pictures of Lenin at the bread riots in St.Petersburg.What he was doing was exactly the same as whats int he manefesto - he was stirring the pot to get people to pay attention to the status of their lives and suggest to them a means to make it right. TO that end hyperbolie was used to get them to wake up.

And yes, relgions have had killing problems. But for the most part, bibles and religous texts don't call for mass revoultion, death, etc. And "Jihad" in the Koran is a holy struggle, and that doesn't mean war (nessesarily; depending on interpretation).

You really need to read the Koran and the Bible yourself before you dribble out the standard nonsense in regards to their terribly violent and ignorant nature. The Koran has many, many, many death pennalties, and advocates violence against unbelivers all over the place. Islam itself was generally spread by the sword. Mohammad himself was no stranger to the battlefield. Jihad means war, only later was it more politely thought to mean some sort of vauge intellectual struggle. The so called Islamic "Radicals" aren't really radical at all, they are merely trying to revive a classic form of Islam. Islamic fundamentalist states are hardly anything new...

As to Christianity, just read the damn bible, there's plenty of violent stuff in there, and of course the actions of Christians in general are pretty suspect.

Now if you want to make this an argument agains ideology in general that makes sense, but to attack Communisim that is merely attempting to improve the lives of the people (though unsuccessful) then on the other hand defend Religion which is based on nothing but supersition and generally perpetuates the vested interests of the few.... seems spurious.

what Marx was talking about was pretty much 'the end of history', if you are thinking along the line of a simple change in the 'ruling class', i.e. capitalists & proletariat exchanging their places as the ruler & the ruled, that is just exactly the same pattern of power shift & that is obviously not what Marx was talking about.

Proletariat revolution & awakening of class consciousness is NOT about oppressing capitalists & taking from them what they have & re-distributing it - at the core of purist Marxism, what you see is abolition of private property & the end of 'class struggle' per se - it's never been about 'taking from the rich' or whatever propaganda you've been fed to make you feel 'in danger' as someone living in a capitalist system.

Basically, Marxism is directed at the capitalist 'system', and his entire writings are about analysing how this system works and what can be done to 'change the system' so that we may reach the final/most advanced form of social/political/economical 'end point' of history where such 'power struggle' simply would not occur, and here you're talking about how Marx wanted proletariat want same sort of 'oppression' towards capitalists/whoever.

You're completely misunderstanding 'dictatorship of proletariat' - it has to be dictatorship because there simply won't be any other class! Who are they gonna 'oppress' if there is no class below them? When you hear 'abolition of ruling class' you are thinking of these angry workers storming into houses of riches and 'abolishing' the human lives found there, but that's missing the whole point. In a crude format, when you see 'Abolition of ruling class' don't think of 'oppressing/killing the PEOPLE who are in ruling position currently', instead you should be thinking of 'abolishing the current system where the divide between the ruling class and the ruled exist'.


Pure Marxism in its essence is about emancipation of everyone & everything, it's all about the system & what he wanted to do to the system to end the struggle once and for all. If you look at history and criticise what Stalin or Mao or whoever else that claimed to follow Marx actually did as facts then fine, you may have a point, but you have absolutely no valid ground for bringing Marx/his writings into this, especially in a discussion regarding Hitler!

And as my final point, 'private ownership'/concept of 'private property' and all such things are far from 'natural order of things' - THAT, is a very dangerous thought. Sure, you could say this is how you prefer things to be and I have abosolutely no problem with that - people think different & you're entitled to your opinion, but 'natural laws'? What, 'natural laws' as in Nazis believed they had 'natural' superiority over other race? How can you say that any form of civil/legal/social system/concept is 'natural'? There is always question of power behind such things, and if anything, that's something everyone should learn from Marx regardless of what they think of communism as a whole - think about how society is run, think about how private ownerships are established, and think about what powers are making them work as you see as 'natural' now.

If you are basing your thoughts regarding these issues on Locke, then don't forget that Locke's philosophical arugments can be torn apart into sorry little pieces as easily as anything ever.

Bonafide, why don't you use a Swastika as your avatar instead?

I've beek fcuked over by two of my employers over the years, in major ways. Your talk is nice, but it is something that comes out the rear end and rhymes with hit.

hell of a lot more eloquently put than my big rant... and from experience at that! not from academic blah blah blah

and you must take those things with a grain of salt. The manesto was meant to get people angry - that was the PRIMARY PURPOSE of the document. The idea was to wake people up - to show them in clear and vigourous language that they were being exploited and had by those richer and more powerful than they.

this I totally agree too.

Now if you want to make this an argument agains ideology in general that makes sense, but to attack Communisim that is merely attempting to improve the lives of the people (though unsuccessful) then on the other hand defend Religion which is based on nothing but supersition and generally perpetuates the vested interests of the few.... seems spurious.

yeah this is what really ticked me off and made me rant. I'm not a fully pledged Marxist or anything like that at all, but I just couldn't let go of this, especially when SOME concepts and ideologies are being touted as 'natural right' and SOME concepts and ideologies are criticised without much effort of actually trying to understand what it's saying/what it's trying to do.

@Emperor2: You do realise that "communism" is a broad term referring to anarcho-collectivist ideologies which have been around for millenia? Hell, the father of European communist thought is none other than Jesus "Christ" of Nazareth, and even he was preceded by several Greek philosophers. Only Marxism was devised by Marx- hence the name- and many socialists/communists actually reject a lot of Marx's theories.
To say that all communism stems from Marx is to say that all capitalism stems from Adam Smith. Worse, if anything, because communism- both as a word and an ideology- pre-dates Marx by centuries, while Smith wrote before the term "capitalism" was even used and the ideology was still in it's infancy.

Want to know the solution to the middle east's problems? World Atheisim.

Yeah, because things like weapons of mass destruction were conceived of and made into reality using religious inquiry, right? What about resource shortages? Will those suddenly disappear if you get rid of religion? What about delusions of grandeur? Mao was a communist, Stalin was a communist, both wantonly destroyed religious buildings and symbols, murdered priests, all in the name of establishing a non-religious society.

Atheism is just like religion. People insist it will solve problems, bring peace, help people get along. But it won't. The only thing I believe is that the question of god'(s') existence is so unanswerable that it's absurd to take a position on it one way or the other. I guess you can say I adhere to Skepticism.

Mao was a communist, Stalin was a communist, both wantonly destroyed religious buildings and symbols, murdered priests, all in the name of establishing a non-religious society.
Good point- the only difference between state-enforced religion and state-enforced atheism is what you worship- the personality cults of Stalin or Mao were religous in every sense but the spiritual.

the personality cults of Stalin or Mao were religous in every sense but the spiritual.

That goes for Marxism, too. Many sociologists consider Marxism/Communism (as opposed to socialism as a description of economic policy...) to be millennial movements (social/religious movements that promise a period of peace after a period of strife), just like Christianity.

That goes for Marxism, too. Many sociologists consider Marxism/Communism (as opposed to socialism as a description of economic policy...) to be millennial movements (social/religious movements that promise a period of peace after a period of strife), just like Christianity.

being a sociologist myself i would just like to add that maybe it can be considered that way 'in effect', but not 'in theory'.

being a sociologist myself i would just like to add that maybe it can be considered that way 'in effect', but not 'in theory'.

Totally disagree. A millennial movement is simply a movement that promises a period of peace after a period of strife. The term "millennial" does come directly from Christianity and the 1,000 year peace promised after the apocalypse and judgement day. But, it can be broadly applied at this point (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/millennium):

1 a : the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20 during which holiness is to prevail and Christ is to reign on earth b : a period of great happiness or human perfection

Marxism absolutely, 100%, adheres to this model. The manifesto explicitly calls for the workers to rise up and wage war on the upper classes and seize power (~apocalypse), then relinquish power (~judgement), and finally peace will come to all of society (~the "millennium").

Oh, and fwiw, I didn't just read about this stuff on the Internet, but in a sociology of religion class I took in the course of getting my sociology/anthropology degree. Not that this gives me the final word, not by any means, but I did do a lot of reading and discussing and writing about this in class.

Yeah, because things like weapons of mass destruction were conceived of and made into reality using religious inquiry, right? What about resource shortages? Will those suddenly disappear if you get rid of religion?

It seems foolish to ignore the shouts of Allah. When Allah is gone you no longer have to listen to his yelling. All those weapons are made to spread the House of Allah vis a vis the House of War. Or likewise to not fall under the Islamic sword. When they all die the meaning of the struggle will die, its heart will die, then the fighting will gradually cease.

"OMG there r a resource shoutige!" is not as good a motivator as "Spread the holy word of Islam through being a martyr or holy soldier".Being a deeply religious people, they are wont to listen to the call for Jihad when it is shouted from the minarets.

As for the Agnostic argument, I find that absurd, and people ONLY use that line of logic in connection with god. If I suggested that dinosaurs ruled the earth from secret hideouts inside the Andes moutains you would call that rediculous. You would NOT say "The existence of alien diosaur rules is essencially unnowable so therefore I cannot come to a conclusion as to their existence." This is yet another logical fig leaf. . . I can't imagine why people are so reticent to acknoledge the obvious, that the world is nothing more than we make it and observe it to be. Rediculous assertions that are ancient are no less rediculous becuase you happen to be encuturated into them, that means YOU Christianity, Islam, Judaisim...etc

I didn't take the agnostic view, I took the "it's not even worth taking a stance on" view. Agnostics say "I don't know." I say "I don't care."

All those weapons are made to spread the House of Allah vis a vis the House of War. Or likewise to not fall under the Islamic sword.

LOL - you have to be kidding me. War was not invented in the 400s AD.

When they all die the meaning of the struggle will die, its heart will die, then the fighting will gradually cease.

That's some scary, scary shite you're suggesting there. Similar things were said about we Jewish people by...um...lets see...what was his name again? Oh, right, HITLER!

"OMG there r a resource shoutige!" is not as good a motivator

Have you ever watched your child die of thirst or starvation?

Circular arguments to the effect that Islamic Jihad does not exist bore me, it ignores the Arab street, where Reactionary Islam is a powerful force.

As far as I know, no one is starving in the Islamic world. The are far more wealthy than the African peoples. And also if they do wont, and find themselves under an economic glass ceiling, it is to their own Monarchies that they should look to overthrow, not anyone else. It is the Absolute Monarchies that suck up much of the oil wealth in that region, its really them the people should be angry with.

As far as religion fading away, I'm no more suggesting we kill the jews than that we kill the muslims. Or kill anyone for that matter. I'm suggesting it stop being something to fight over. Its quite pointless to insist that your imaginay friend is superior to mine.

Circular arguments to the effect that Islamic Jihad does not exist bore me

Nice straw man. I never said jihad does not exist, just that you can't reduce the causes of war to jihad and jihad alone, let alone support the idea that all of Islam universally supports all calls for jihad. Many, in fact, reject it. It's also a very fractured religion, much like Christianity, so approaching it holistically is fallacious.

As far as I know, no one is starving in the Islamic world.

HAHAHA! Good one.

And also if they do wont, and find themselves under an economic glass ceiling, it is to their own Monarchies that they should look to overthrow, not anyone else. It is the Absolute Monarchies that suck up much of the oil wealth in that region, its really them the people should be angry with.

At least you admit that wanting for resources is a cause of violence and hostility.

I'm suggesting it stop being something to fight over. Its quite pointless to insist that your imaginay friend is superior to mine.

With that I agree. Your previous wording was just...um...well...yeah. History has shown that people WILL kill to bring an end to a religion or all religion. To do that is to simply force the belief in non-belief on someone with the barrel of a gun.

I have never seen any game simulating WWII without Poland in it, it's more ridiculous than one without France in it. It's possible not to have the US in, because that was never a theater.
So you've never played the Civ II Second World War scenario? Or even Axis and Allies for that matter?

Bonafide, why don't you use a Swastika as your avatar instead?

Because the swastika is an offensive symbol that advocates committing genocide against millions of people. This is also why there is no Swastika symbol in Civilization.

The Sickle and Hammer that I use as my avatar is in Civilization. It is the symbol for when you discover Communism. I am using an icon that is directly from Civilization and that can be found on this site.

Notice the symbol for Communism, and notice how the symbol for Fascism is NOT the swastika: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/techs/

Clearly the Swastika is much more of an offensive symbol than the Sickle and Hammer.

. . .

Clearly the Swastika is much more of an offensive symbol than the Sickle and Hammer.
That is really, really, poor reasoning.

No, it's not. The Sickle and Hammer does not advocate mass murder; the swastika does. It's that simple. How can you even compare the two symbols?

The Sickle and Hammer advocates violent revolution against more successful people, including murdering, raping and torturing of millions of people, burning of churches and invading other countries in order to commit the same crimes there.

The Sicle and Hammer are symbols that millions of people here hate, because people using those symbols murdered their parents, grandparents, robbed their property, send them on one-way journeys to Siberia or Kazakhstan and turned their countries into their country's satellites.

We should either allow both symbols or none. I'm for allowing both of them.

It does obviously advocate mass murder, and people commiting mass murders all around the world wore that symbol, just like other people commiting mass murders wore Swastikas. Why are the red mass murderers better than those in brown?

So you've never played the Civ II Second World War scenario? Or even Axis and Allies for that matter?

Well, but in all fairness, the Civ2 WWII scenario started after Poland had already been invaded so it just started off as Axis cities... which they probably did because they couldn't fit anymore civs.

No, it's not. The Sickle and Hammer does not advocate mass murder; the swastika does. It's that simple. How can you even compare the two symbols?
Your reasoning is faulty because you basically said:

X is in Z
Y is not in Z

Therefore, X is not offensive while Y is.

That's extremely poor logic.

Has any proposed a 'genocide' national wonder for the Germans yet?

If you're going to glorify Hitler, you need to glorify the genocide.

I'm against including Hitler in the game.

Well, but in all fairness, the Civ2 WWII scenario started after Poland had already been invaded so it just started off as Axis cities... which they probably did because they couldn't fit anymore civs.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a simulation of the Second World War that puts a large, empty void in Eastern Europe where Poland is ;)

Ishon is obviously talking about Poland as a playable side - which is in actual fact quite rare outside of the Paradox "Hearts of Iron" games.

@ Andrew Jay - Extremely OT - I've been to St. John's before in Newfoundland, it was an extremely pretty city. I've kind of thought about moving there for a year - but the winters must be brutal.

I'm not from Newfoundland, not even close actually (Im from Chile), but it was a really nice area. The food was terrible though. I don't see why so many Canadians make fun of it.

Because the swastika is an offensive symbol that advocates committing genocide against millions of people.

Actually, it has a very long history in India and east Asia, and traditionally has very positive connotations. Hitler ruined that for the West, just like he apparently ruined countless Germanic folks songs, which he used to attract the hearts and minds of the people.

The sickle and hammer is NOT banned in any major game market.

The swastika is.

End of the story as to which of them should be in.

Actually, it has a very long history in India and east Asia, and traditionally has very positive connotations. Hitler ruined that for the West, just like he apparently ruined countless Germanic folks songs, which he used to attract the hearts and minds of the people.

Not to mention a moustache style.

It's just a game...why do we care so much if they include swatzticas or not. Personally I don't give a crap.

Not to mention a moustache style.
I know...:cry:

The sickle and hammer is NOT banned in any major game market.

The swastika is.

End of the story as to which of them should be in.

Agreed. I made that point earlier... although I wasn't nearly that concise ;)

Not to mention a moustache style.

And a hair style!

Your reasoning is faulty because you basically said:

X is in Z
Y is not in Z

Therefore, X is not offensive while Y is.

That's extremely poor logic.
No it's not. That's the same logic used to imprison people, or not. A man is in the set of criminals or he is not. If he is in the set of criminals, place him in prison for a specified period.

No it's not. That's the same logic used to imprison people, or not. A man is in the set of criminals or he is not. If he is in the set of criminals, place him in prison for a specified period.

For that to work, there'd have to be a universal element to being a criminal, but there's not. You're can be a murderer, a burglar, a burglar-murderer, a launderer-rapist, etc, etc, etc. Excluding Mao and Stalin from genocide does not remove them from the group of mass murdering human rights abusers. Also, you could argue that at least Mao did engage in genocide, he just didn't limit himself to one group (the cultural revolution, anyone?)

Jeeze, this is getting to be too much...:crazyeye:

I realize the Swastika was around long before the Nazis, but you're not proposing using it as a symbol for an ancient Indian civilization, you're proposing using it as a Nazi symbol. As a Nazi symbol, the swastika symbolizes ethnic cleansing.

Mass murder was committed by people holding a sickle and hammer flag, but that is not what the sickle and hammer itself advocated. Despite the actions of some people using the symbol, the sickle and hammer is merely a symbol of worker unity and not genocide. The Nazi swastika is a symbol that advocates the extermination of particular races. Again, I do not think they are comparable.

Civilization so useful for learning about history :crazyeye:

Totally disagree. A millennial movement is simply a movement that promises a period of peace after a period of strife. The term "millennial" does come directly from Christianity and the 1,000 year peace promised after the apocalypse and judgement day. But, it can be broadly applied at this point (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/millennium):

Marxism absolutely, 100%, adheres to this model. The manifesto explicitly calls for the workers to rise up and wage war on the upper classes and seize power (~apocalypse), then relinquish power (~judgement), and finally peace will come to all of society (~the "millennium").

I simply do not see any value in such classification because it is matter of definitions and what can/cannot fall under any given definitions, and it doesn't mean much to me really. I mean I could say Marxism is a 'German Jewish Movement', whereby my definition would be that a German Jewish Movement includes any theories proposed by any one-time German national with any links to Jewish heritage, and to this extent Marxism ADHERES to German Jewish Movement. To me, classification of Marxism as millenial movement or whatever else is as easy & as useful/useless to do as the example I've just made up. Such practice, in my view, is nothing more than word play and whatever the sources/books these views stem from mean nothing to me, as it is my daily task to challenge and argue with whatever sources I come across, be it from a professional sociologist or from a non-specialist.

Also, I did not mention myself being a sociologist to put any 'weight' behind what I have proposed, but in effect it was a simple demonstration of the fact that there ARE sociologists who do not agree with such things, me being one of them. To be fair it was mentioned that 'many' sociologists say this, not ALL, so I was just posing my alternative view on the matter as a sociologist. I would have said the same thing if anybody said "many Koreans say that... etc", because I am a Korean national and in such cases I would have every right to make a counter statement saying "I am a korean but i personally don't agree to this... etc".

The reason why I felt I wanted to chip in my 2 cents on this issue is because I do not agree with these 'many sociologists' you are talking about, and I think it is in my academic instinct to open my mouth whenever I feel like certain counter-arguments/viewpoints within any given field of academia gets marginalised or simply overlooked in a sweeping statement given to general public, especially in the field of sociology where pretty much anybody's anything ever can be succesfully criticised and counter-argued against. It didn't have to be Marx, you could've said anything along the format of 'many sociologists/Korean/male say that... x is y', and if I do not agree with x being y and I am a sociologist/korean/male/whatever then I would generally like to express my view as such.

I simply do not see any value in such classification because it is matter of definitions and what can/cannot fall under any given definitions, and it doesn't mean much to me really. I mean I could say Marxism is a 'German Jewish Movement', whereby my definition would be that a German Jewish Movement includes any theories proposed by any one-time German national with any links to Jewish heritage, and to this extent Marxism ADHERES to German Jewish Movement. To me, classification of Marxism as millenial movement or whatever else is as easy & as useful/useless to do as the example I've just made up. Such practice, in my view, is nothing more than word play and whatever the sources/books these views stem from mean nothing to me, as it is my daily task to challenge and argue with whatever sources I come across, be it from a professional sociologist or from a non-specialist.

Also, I did not mention myself being a sociologist to put any 'weight' behind what I have proposed, but in effect it was a simple demonstration of the fact that there ARE sociologists who do not agree with such things, me being one of them. To be fair it was mentioned that 'many' sociologists say this, not ALL, so I was just posing my alternative view on the matter as a sociologist. I would have said the same thing if anybody said "many Koreans say that... etc", because I am a Korean national and in such cases I would have every right to make a counter statement saying "I am a korean but i personally don't agree to this... etc".

The reason why I felt I wanted to chip in my 2 cents on this issue is because I do not agree with these 'many sociologists' you are talking about, and I think it is in my academic instinct to open my mouth whenever I feel like certain counter-arguments/viewpoints within any given field of academia gets marginalised or simply overlooked in a sweeping statement given to general public, especially in the field of sociology where pretty much anybody's anything ever can be succesfully criticised and counter-argued against. It didn't have to be Marx, you could've said anything along the format of 'many sociologists/Korean/male say that... x is y', and if I do not agree with x being y and I am a sociologist/korean/male/whatever then I would generally like to express my view as such.

Good Post :goodjob:

I still don't see the point of removing these symbols. Isn't that what localization is for? I just don't agree with dumbing down even loosely historically based games to conform with the rules of every single market the game will be sold in. They already need to localize languages. Leaderheads and banners shouldn't be that hard to localize. It's not as if they're creating a different engine.

I just don't agree with dumbing down even loosely historically based games to conform with the rules of every single market the game will be sold in.

How is that 'dumbing down' exactly?

That doesn't add up, Andrewlt. For games like Civilization, that have very little language-dependant audio content, programers often put many if not most "main" language versions on the same CD, that is then sold wherever relevant. People just chose the language they want to install the game in from a drop-down menu, and that's that.

That wouldn't work for nazi symbols, of course - if Firaxis wanted to have a "swastika less version" for Germany, they would need to create a separate version of the game, and the english/french/everywhere else version could never be sold in Germany, or imported by German customers.

It's simply far more reasonable for them to make the minor sacrifice of not having swastika, than to jump the hoops you suggest to please the vocal minority that demand Nazi symbols.

fact: the lack of hitler will not reduce the amount of units sold
fact: the inclusion of hitler will reduce the amount of units sold

which one do you side with selling a game?

The Sickle and Hammer advocates violent revolution against more successful people, including murdering, raping and torturing of millions of people, burning of churches and invading other countries in order to commit the same crimes there.
I'm sorry, but that assertion is little more than reactionary nonsense dressed up as a factual statement. The Hammer & Sickle was used decades before the Russian Revolution, let alone Stalin's take over, and is in no way a symbol of violent revolution. Peaceful socialist and Trade Unionist organisations across Europe used the symbol without any violent intent, and certainly not with the intention of "