An Intellectual Discussion About Leaders

[usi]

Oh, Wu was a much greater figure than Jiang Qing ever was.

Of course, Wu was much better than Jiang Qing. I just wanted to point out why Wu's name became so much well known especially in China.

Cao cao, while brilliant as a strategist, politician and poet(!), didn't successfully unified China, as such, he can hardly qualified as a candidate for the leader.

Wu didn't unite China either - she just took power. And taking power within an empire is not much of an achievement, as even some eunuchs (宦&#23448, most of whom are completely incapable of doing any good politics, succeeded in getting power.

 

[w00tm0ng3r]

Same reason as Cao cao, While Sun is a great man (in his time), but he didn't unite China, which effectively means he has never led china. He is a great scholar, intellectual and revolutionary, but as a politician he is less effective and certainly is not a ruler. As such, I don't deem him fit as a leader choice.

If Qing, Mao, Wu, Tang taizong, Ming taizhu belong to the first tier of chinese leaders, Sun belongs to the second tier, at best.

By that argument Oda Nobunaga never led Japan... The country was not unified until Hideyoshi and Tokugawa finished his work after his death.

 

[skallben]

Excuse me, sir, but no, no it could absolutely not be said. Churchill did not lead his nation to ruin, not in the least, it is to his credit he helped save his nation in it's darkest time. It is in saving England and Europe FROM Nazi Germany that the British Empire was dissolved, it's treasure and power spent, not because Churchill made a megalomanical play for continental dominance. The acts of Hitler were the cause of the decline of the British Empire, not the acts of Churchill (oops, was Stalin).

There is precious little sir in common between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler, and to suggest there is should bring infamy to your name.



Two absolutely insufferably foolish comments in one post. This post is almost certainly the most abjectly backwards and incorrect opinion stated on the Internet today. You win!

You missed the point. Churchill was a citizen, a soldier and later prime minister of an empire, and neither him nor the empire existed solely in the timframe of WWII. History favours the winners but there is plenty on him. I'm not saying I am not happy the allies won WWII and I'm not saying the british were not a great part of it. I'm saying Churchill was not a saint.

 

[vendur]

3 of the leaders in civ 5 are german. Queen elizabeth, Catherine the great, and Bismarck. Do they need a 4th in Hitler. Hey, he was austrian anyway.

 

[skallben]

@Kamenev vs. Brianshapiro
I would like to know how you percieve the impact of the Versailles-treaty on german nationalist sentiments.

Hitlers public persona was deliberately designed to seduce the masses, he took classes in acting and rhetorics IIRC. Propaganda was a relatively new political tool and it seems unlikely that the masses would handle this the same way the post-modern man would.

Hitler was indeed elected, but was he elected to start a world war and launch genocide campaigns? Racism and nationalism was common in this era, not only in Germany. A wish for a strong unified Germany wouldnt necessary mean that you'd want a dictator to try and conquer the world. Given the same background and social conditions as in 30s Germany, could not a Hitler have been elected anywhere?

We look at his speeches and we get revolted, probably this has much to do with what we learned to relate to the swastika in that particular setup, Hitlers moustache, the heil-greeting, the militaristic symmetries. For many present when it happened, this was probably not at all strange, it was a political campaign and people do have strong feelings about politics. Arguably people have more feelings than knowledge on politics.

Institutionalized racism, depression, poverty, national pride, duty, none of these are the inventions of Hitler. What historical events, social factors, political factors, medial tendencies, institutions, norms, ideas was there allow a figure like Hitler to win support in the first place?

 

[vendur]

Hitler wasn't elected originally. He forced his way into power, The elections after he secured power for himself, were hardly indicative of anything. With the things like the night of long knives and the opponents of the nazi politicians ending up dead/missing, it soon became incredibly dangerous to be anything but a nazi de facto or at least somehow pro-nazi.

The idea the german people are somehow responsible for the holocaust is like saying the jewish people are responsible for the holocaust for simply being in europe at all. Ridiculous and, quite frankly, rather bigoted.

 

[Woltereck]

Hi there just wanted to make a few comments on the whole Hitler subject. The main reason I believe why Hitler isn't in the game is purely monetary value. Germany hosts probably the biggest gaming community in Europe, since there are laws prohibiting anything involved with the NSDAP, it's quite obvious as to why Firaxis would not put Hitler in their games.

Now in regards to comparing rulers of the same time frame. Let's take a look at Stalin real quick, first of all, his purges. He completely destroyed his military's chain of command with them. Also, more Russian citizens died in his two 5-year plans then the number of people that died in the holocaust. I'm not trying to justify Hitler in any way, but if you were to put requirements on leaders and how they run their country then maybe these people should not have been in any CIV game. Now looking at Mao, his great leap forward killed more Chinese citizens then Stalin's two 5-year plans and you all are arguing about Hitler and the German people?

Also, Hitler was man of the year in 1938 for what he had done to rebuild Germany. Making Germany the most powerful nation in Europe in such a short time frame, and he didn't have policies that would kill his citizens like Stalin and Mao.

It's quite obvious looking at these three leaders, that Firaxis has no good or bad requirement for their CIV games. As said in a previous post the only reason why Hitler is not in the game is monetary value.

German citizens are not to blame for the holocaust, the NSDAP are responsible. When you have nothing, your country has been run into the ground and people are starving and can't work to feed their families. Anything that brings hope to them, whether it be good or bad, is accepted and that's exactly what Hitler gave the German people in the 1930's, hope.

Regarding the antisemitism in that time period, everyone hated the Jews, not just the Germans. I do recall the US limiting the number of Jews migrating to the country in this time as well, no one was nice to them.

 

[brianshapiro]

@Kamenev vs. Brianshapiro
I would like to know how you percieve the impact of the Versailles-treaty on german nationalist sentiments.

Hitlers public persona was deliberately designed to seduce the masses, he took classes in acting and rhetorics IIRC. Propaganda was a relatively new political tool and it seems unlikely that the masses would handle this the same way the post-modern man would.

Hitler was indeed elected, but was he elected to start a world war and launch genocide campaigns? Racism and nationalism was common in this era, not only in Germany. A wish for a strong unified Germany wouldnt necessary mean that you'd want a dictator to try and conquer the world. Given the same background and social conditions as in 30s Germany, could not a Hitler have been elected anywhere?

We look at his speeches and we get revolted, probably this has much to do with what we learned to relate to the swastika in that particular setup, Hitlers moustache, the heil-greeting, the militaristic symmetries. For many present when it happened, this was probably not at all strange, it was a political campaign and people do have strong feelings about politics. Arguably people have more feelings than knowledge on politics.

Institutionalized racism, depression, poverty, national pride, duty, none of these are the inventions of Hitler. What historical events, social factors, political factors, medial tendencies, institutions, norms, ideas was there allow a figure like Hitler to win support in the first place?

Putting the blame on Versailles alone (which a lot of people do) would be ignoring what was happening around the world.

Fascism not only arose in Germany, but also in Italy and in Spain, and to some degree in Britain and France. Because the United States had a different civic structure, there was no room for a strong fascist movement, but there were marches on Washington by soldiers from WWI who felt betrayed, business interests plotting against FDR -- feeling he had usurped political authority when he threatened to stack the courts, and anger at socialist demagogues like Huey Long.

WWI had been a catalyst for the end of a lot of the old conservative order, including the aristocracy in Europe, so Europe had become a blank slate for a lot of left-wing revolutionaries. The more chaos there was, the more it spilled out on the streets, and thats where we come to Germany and Versailles. The German paramilitaries, the Freikorps, grew in response to communist and anarchist rebellions. For a brief period there was a Bavarian Soviet Republic, which was only put down by those paramilitaries. The chaos was not only in politics, but in art and every other aspect of life. Cabaret theater broke traditional sexual mores, the avant-garde created a lot of ugly, strange, and disturbing art and architecture.

The Nazis gained popularity among those who felt that the left-wing had destroyed Germany and liberal democrats were too weak, ineffectual, and corrupt to deal with the problem and restore the country. They used the threat of Communist revolution to gain votes and power. They also blamed socialists, Jews, and others for Versailles, but Versailles only mattered in Germany because it was a German issue. There was no Versailles to rally around in Italy -- Italy was one of the victors in WWI -- but yet Mussolini came to power.

Many people knew Hitler was a reactionary and dangerous but felt he could be contained. Papen said to a friend "within two months we will have pushed Hitler so far in the corner that he'll squeak"

 

[Reginleif]

I think Firaxis may listen to Glenn Beck because they seem to idolize George Washington at every opportunity, despite being a failed military leader (the only reason the U.S. won the war is France), and anti-Enlightenment hypocrite. He is often portrayed as egalitarian, yet he strongly opposed abolition and argued that as president he should be exempt from Pennsilvanyia anti-slavery legislation. I'm not saying that leaders should be saints (I prefer characters with more colour to them), but Lincoln or one of the Roosevelts would make a far more American leader.

Also I always found it weird that they choose Askia over Sonni Ali, an undefeated military leader who forged the Songai Empire. Askia largly inherited what Ali began, so I do wonder why they choose him?

 

[w00tm0ng3r]

I think Firaxis may listen to Glenn Beck because they seem to idolize George Washington at every opportunity, despite being a failed military leader (the only reason the U.S. won the war is France), and anti-Enlightenment hypocrite. He is often portrayed as egalitarian, yet he strongly opposed abolition and argued that as president he should be exempt from Pennsilvanyia anti-slavery legislation. I'm not saying that leaders should be saints (I prefer characters with more colour to them), but Lincoln or one of the Roosevelts would make a far more American leader.

Also I always found it weird that they choose Askia over Sonni Ali, an undefeated military leader who forged the Songai Empire. Askia largly inherited what Ali began, so I do wonder why they choose him?

Eh George is possibly the most overrated general in history. The way I learned it in school he fought 9 conventional battles with roughly equal forces on both sides against the British and lost 6 of them. The American revolution was a lot like Vietnam: one side kept losing all the battles but eventually won the war because the other side's home people eventually got sick of their loved ones getting shipped off to die halfway across the world for a cause they didn't care all that much about.

Between Askia and Sonni Ali, well Askia has "the Great" attached to his name which gives him a bit of street cred

 

[Kamenev]

@Kamenev vs. Brianshapiro
I would like to know how you percieve the impact of the Versailles-treaty on german nationalist sentiments.

Hitlers public persona was deliberately designed to seduce the masses, he took classes in acting and rhetorics IIRC. Propaganda was a relatively new political tool and it seems unlikely that the masses would handle this the same way the post-modern man would.

Hitler was indeed elected, but was he elected to start a world war and launch genocide campaigns? Racism and nationalism was common in this era, not only in Germany. A wish for a strong unified Germany wouldnt necessary mean that you'd want a dictator to try and conquer the world. Given the same background and social conditions as in 30s Germany, could not a Hitler have been elected anywhere?

We look at his speeches and we get revolted, probably this has much to do with what we learned to relate to the swastika in that particular setup, Hitlers moustache, the heil-greeting, the militaristic symmetries. For many present when it happened, this was probably not at all strange, it was a political campaign and people do have strong feelings about politics. Arguably people have more feelings than knowledge on politics.

Institutionalized racism, depression, poverty, national pride, duty, none of these are the inventions of Hitler. What historical events, social factors, political factors, medial tendencies, institutions, norms, ideas was there allow a figure like Hitler to win support in the first place?

Fascism was a trend in continental Europe not exclusive to Germany. The fact that Hitler came to power in Germany has more to do with what the Versaille Tready did not do, than what it actually did.

At the end of WWI, the elites that had pushed for Germany to begin WWI, were not punished. The leaders of the war industry, the high-ranking generals, and even the remnants of the Prussian nobility were not removed. It is no suprise that the communist uprisings in 1919 throughout Germany were supressed. The elite on the right fully funded the paramilitary forces to crush the uprisings.

Hitler appealed to this elite conservative group, plain and simple. The union of Fascism, Hitler, and the previous elite (militaristic I might add) created a force more powerful than their socialist/communist opposition. Germany was militaristic, and the old elite did want to conquer Europe. Hitler was not alone in his desire for military conquest. People on these forums will tell you differently, but they are wrong, and from what I understand from their posts, theys have most likely not studied any period of Germany before 1933.

If you look at the Versaille Treaty itself, most of the Germans were upset because of its meaning, not its punitive consequences. The idea that Versaille bankrupted Germany has been disproven time and time again. Germany had been the most succussful country in Europe during the 19th Century, and its success led them to WWI. In their defeat, society found fascism as a means to restore German pride.

There were many things which made Germany become Nazi Germany, but it was mainly the old military clique left over from WWI which enabled Hitler to get powerful friends. Had Versaille not left them intact, then most likely the 1919 communist uprisings would have succeeded. Old Prussian militarism combined with Hitler, resentment of the Versaille Treaty, AND a growing bourgeois sentiment that Germans themselves were not blame for Germany's hardships, and that the bourgeois were superior to their working-class counterparts, fed the German war machine. See 'The Salaried Masses' by Siegfried Kracauer published in Weimar Germany, 1928.

 

[Kamenev]

The idea the german people are somehow responsible for the holocaust is like saying the jewish people are responsible for the holocaust for simply being in europe at all. Ridiculous and, quite frankly, rather bigoted.

The German people are not to blame for the Holocaust, and to think that they were is 'bigoted.' Wow.

By such a statement, every atrocity in the world is forgiven:

Americans are not to blame for slavery.

Russians are not to blame for the purges under Stalin.

Japan is not to blame for their atrocities in China or Korea.

South Africans are not to blame for the Apartheid.

AND (here is the real prize) if you think so, you are a 'bigot' to top it off!!! (To be fair though, in the cases of Sourth Africa, the USA, and the USSR, there are numerous documented cases/groups of resistence and opposition. The same cannot be said for Nazi Germany or Japan. A few people on this forum disagree, and think there are numerous examples of German resistance, but have failed to provide ANY concrete evidence. That is because there is only one known group, which I mentioned in a previous post. The truth is (as historians have written about),if you were not part of the targeted MINORITY groups, you could live your life quite freely Nazi Germany, that being, if you were in the MAJORITY, which is what we are talking about.)

Again, this is the no one is to blame argument that chooses not to make morality an issue, narrows history for easier understanding, and puts the blame on the victims.

YES, it is true that not all German people in Nazi Germany contributed DIRECTLY to the Holocaust. But INDIRECTLY they did almost absolutely nothing to prevent it, challenge it, or even slow it down. The excuse that they 'did not know' it was happening has been disproven time and time again, and is not an accepted defence. Have any of you read the letters from Germans at the end of Primo Levi's 'The Drowned and the Saved.'?? Anyone?

Anyone read, 'Fraun: German Women Recall the Third Reich,' or 'Ordinary Men,' or countless other ACADEMIC books where Germans in that period describe their support for Nazi Germany, who themselves WERE NOT NAZIS. No one?...

 

[Kamenev]

Oh, and finally on George Washington.

He was not great because he was won battles, but because he did not get destroyed. The army was the embodiment of the revolution, and had his army been wiped out, the American cause would have been lost.

Second, he was asked to be king and refused. Further, he willingly surrendered power after 8 years, something Europe did not think he was going to do. This gesture ensured that a peaceful transition between presidents was possible.

He was indeed a very great man, and deserves his place as a leaderhead in Civ V.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

My suggestion : just pick nation/civs and not leaders.

Leaders - or advisors - will change according to your game-play and approach ... it will make perfect sense to have as foreign advisor a monk-based figure from history if you choose Piety and Kissinger/Bismarck if you choose Rationalism ( aka real-politik paradigm ).

 

[gornard]

The german legal consideration is probably the main reason, but theres also the question of taste. Theres plenty of world war 2 games out there, this is about civilizations. If you had to choose a leader to represent germany as a civilization, bismark is probably as close as you are going to get. Not a perfect human being, but probably the best leader the unified Germany as ever had in a number of respects. There are few germans today i'd guess that would look to Hitler as a representative of their nation.

In my opinion the leaders in civ games should be timeless national symbols.

 

[Woltereck]

@Kamenev
There was German resistance to the NSDAP, well documented if you bothered to even look it up. The best known is the July 20'th plot. I don't think you truly understand of how the conditions were in those times.

To blame the German people for the holocaust is ******ed logic, I'm sorry. Hitler was smart about it, he never once gave an official order and it was under Himmler and the SS. Everyone knew that the Jews were being moved, and no one said anything, not even the US. But there were instances of the German resistance rescuing Jews from trains and from camps.

If you need someone to blame to satisfy yourself blame the NSDAP and the SS (which was determined a war crime organization at Nuremberg).

Yes the German people did support the NSDAP, you would have too if you were a German citizen coming out of the worse depression any country has seen and seeing your country once again become a world power in such a short amount of time.

It's all about understanding what the conditions of the time were like.

 

[Cincinnatus C.]

Again, this is the no one is to blame argument that chooses not to make morality an issue, narrows history for easier understanding, and puts the blame on the victims.

Why is it necessary to blame anyone? Is there any purpose in looking at guilt and innocence not of actions - so that we may understand and prevent them in the future - but of people? Does the leap from "a docile populace can permit atrocities" to "the German people were morally culpable" serve any function other than to assuage our bloodlust and feed our indignation?

 

[blackhawks2010]

I think it would be great to add leaders as unlockable characters as you progress in a game. Make it like a trophy, so to speak. Add scenarios and campaigns, make some awards that give leaders, civs (for big achievements), units, maps, etc. Make the game more interactive, so to speak.

 

[Kamenev]

@Wolterek

First, the July 20th plot. You are talking about the assassination attempt. Yes, that did occur. I am talking about a resistence movement, not isolated cases. People cling to the plot as if all of the German people were behind him. That is simply not true. Even further still, people were not even aware of the 'Order of the White Rose,' and from the looks of it, neither is anyone here on this forum.

On your comment that 'Hitler never gave an official order.' It looks like the forums have moved from not blaming the German populace, to even not blaming Hitler. I hope what you meant to say was that he never wrote down an official order. You could go to prison in some countries for the original statement you made.

I hate fascism with every fiber of my being, and I would not have followed Hitler. I do not follow anyone now, I am not a follower and do not need someone to follow.

By washing your hands and saying 'you can never know unless you were there,' again, only means that there is no reason to study history at all. Which is absurd.

And if you bothered to look up information, you would see things much clearer. I have cited books, historical trends, authors, events, people, and others have just generalized with no evidence. Just 'gut feelings,' and the PC world view that everyone is at peace with one another, and that no one is to blame for anything gets you know where academically.

Is there anyone else on these forums that has some sense to stand up to these people saying that 'no one is to blame.' ???? Someone has just claimed that Hitler never ordered the Holocaust, and people remain silent. What a messed up world.

@Cincinnatus

Yes, expressing that the Germans were 'morally culpable' is helpful historically. It makes the events take on a human persona, and not some channeled agression on to one person who we dismiss as evil (or according to Wolterek, we cannot even do that).

We have to understand the historical trends that were taking place in Europe and in Germany to try to comprehend how NORMAL people can be so vulnerable to fascist impulses. By saying only one person is guilty, you dismiss all the trends, cultures, and victims as meaningless. Does it frighten people that NORMAL people could do these things? IT SHOULD. That is the point. IF IT DOES NOT, you need to do some soul searching.

The people who are defending Hitler and the Nazis on this forum, are no doubt the same individuals who would have joined the NSDAP, supported them, or DID NOTHING to oppose them. I am sorry, but it is true. With such amoral attitudes here, that is a fact.

I know there is a generation out there that only knows Nazi Germany from movies and video games. You need to do some serious reading. Not only on Hitler and the NSDAP, but German history. A safe start would be 1848. Send me a message and I will send you a book list.

If you think you know everything from video games and movies, think again.

 

[w00tm0ng3r]

@Kamenev

To blame the German people for the holocaust is ******ed logic, I'm sorry. Hitler was smart about it, he never once gave an official order and it was under Himmler and the SS. Everyone knew that the Jews were being moved, and no one said anything, not even the US. But there were instances of the German resistance rescuing Jews from trains and from camps.

Excuse me? Hitler was SMART about it? I wasn't aware that writing a book about your intent to commit genocide and practically broadcasting it to the world was being smart about it. A HELL of a lot of people knew about the death camps, especially seeing as how some of them were, you know, right next to cities and towns. Not a smart move.

Now STALIN was smart about genocide. Very few people outside his country found out about just how many people he killed until the 1980s. Of course, it helped that he was on the winning side of WWII, but there's something to be said for not broadcasting your plans for mass murder, putting your death camps in Siberia rather than in peoples' backyards, and engineering famines in the Ukraine rather than any kind of physical dirty work. This is how he managed to kill far more people than Hitler ever did while still enjoying a much better reputation (not that that says much).

Mao was even smarter about it. Well, technically the mass famines that killed more people than even Stalin did were an accident (forcing all your farmers into factories where they churn out useless products because they don't know anything about manufacturing and then wondering why there's no food was not exactly his best moment, but he didn't mean for it to happen), but he did orchestrate the Cultural Revolution which was a pretty damn open purge. However, his personality cult was so strong that he's still revered in China today. It does kinda help that he somehow managed to pin everything on his WIFE (who is reviled).