Germany WW2 leaders -> split from Civ4 Leaders Discussion

double post

NWP20 said:

Firstly, isn't there a WWII mod? Isn't Hitler in that?

Secondly, I think the biggest problem would be the difficult of Hitler DOW'ing on any Jewish civ. That would never make it passed the media spotlight. Ever.

Click to expand...

The Firaxis included WW2 mod has someone who looks a bit like an older Hitler might have looked, without the moustache I believe.

There are mods from private citizens that include Hitler.

There is also already several LHs of Hitler that you can easily add to Germany for a custom game/mod setting.

kochman said:

The Firaxis included WW2 mod has someone who looks a bit like an older Hitler might have looked, without the moustache I believe.

Click to expand...

They use vice-chancellor Von Papen. Von Papen was actually Chancellor of Germany for a few months in 1932 and organized the elevation of Hitler to Chancellor in 1933 - serving as Vice Chancellor till 1934. He was later Ambassador to Austria and Turkey and after the war was one of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders - where he was acquitted of any crimes against humanity/war crimes. So he is probably one of the less controversial senior members of the regime they could find

ori said:

They use vice-chancellor Von Papen. Von Papen was actually Chancellor of Germany for a few months in 1932 and organized the elevation of Hitler to Chancellor in 1933 - serving as Vice Chancellor till 1934. He was later Ambassador to Austria and Turkey and after the war was one of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders - where he was acquitted of any crimes against humanity/war crimes. So he is probably one of the less controversial senior members of the regime they could find

Click to expand...

Good history!
Man, they really reached for that one... I would think Albert Speer would have been better, as he was never really a Nazi so to speak.

@Badtz Maru
Probably those designers haven't tried to head to Mecca recently, or they would most likely, if discovered, be killed. Depicitions of "the prophet" have lead to many killings, international rioting, etc... Ask Denmark.

kochman said:

Good history!
Man, they really reached for that one... I would think Albert Speer would have been better, as he was never really a Nazi so to speak.

Click to expand...

Albert Speer was never formally part of the German cabinet always serving in more informal roles or as someone under direct control of Hitler there was no conceivable way he could have come to rule Germany at any point in time - so using him would have been even more of a stretch than Von Papen.

Also: I am not sure what you mean with "never a Nazi so to speak" - Albert Speer joined the NSDAP in 1931 and was quite enthusiastic about its policies (so long as it furthered his goals) and unlike Von Papen he actually was convicted of involvement in crimes against humanity at Nuremberg and served 20 years for it. Hardly a good choice if you want to choose an uncontroversial figure (or come as close to one as possible).

@ ori
The fact that he was convicted is pretty irrelavent to the discussion. He also received a slap on the wrist because he wasn't a drooling psychopath like the others, which is also pretty irrelevant. He joined the NASDP or whatever, but so did millions others, and that was sheer opportunism, as it was for so many others... This doesn't mean he was really a believing Nazi.

The fact that Speer could never have been the top dog has more to do with the fact that he was an outsider, not amongst the sycophants that Hitler preferred to surround himself by, and they would have just killed him even if by some odd chance he had managed to position himself for the top job...

kochman said:

@ ori
The fact that he was convicted is pretty irrelavent to the discussion. He also received a slap on the wrist because he wasn't a drooling psychopath like the others, which is also pretty irrelevant. He joined the NASDP or whatever, but so did millions others, and that was sheer opportunism, as it was for so many others... This doesn't mean he was really a believing Nazi.

The fact that Speer could never have been the top dog has more to do with the fact that he was an outsider, not amongst the sycophants that Hitler preferred to surround himself by, and they would have just killed him even if by some odd chance he had managed to position himself for the top job...

Click to expand...

I just responded to whether he was a better choice than Von Papen for Firaxis to chose in a WW2 scenario when they chose not to include Hitler - and I do think that their choice was informed by who would be least likely to be controversial - as such his conviction of crimes against humanity does play a role.
As for other things:
Someone who joined the NSDAP 2 years before it came to power - while not necessarily someone who was a deep believer in the cause was also not someone who joined just in order to advance his career - no matter what he wrote/said in latter years - he did make the choice of joining the party at a time where it was not necessarily a career choice.
As for not being among the sycophants that Hitler surrounded himself with: he was essentially a protege of Hitler until the very end - he just never was in a position where you could call him the leader of Germany (or imagine that he could become the leader).

Also:
Moderator Action: I'll split this discussion of into the correct subforum

This was from someone else's post, that didn't seem to make the thread splitting...
Re: Hitler

He was not a good leader, good commander, or even a seriously important figure in the long run of things.

Click to expand...

Ok, not to defend Hitler, but he did do some pretty amazing leadership, beyond charisma... though the outcome was terrible of course...
*He basically invented the "interstate" system, or autobahn, autostrada (of course, its intentions were mainly military at the time).
*He brought back Germany's economy from absolute rubble... they were burning marks instead of firewood because the marks were less expensive...
*He led a country that ended up with many serious technological advances (mainly military applications of course, but ROCKETS for example)
*Took over almost the entire continent of Europe in 2 years! Pretty good military commander to do that.
*It took pretty much the entire civilized world combining to defeat him/his creation... a country which 20 years earlier could only have 100,000 troops, no air force, no tanks, and a very limited navy, etc...
*He reshaped Europe in that in his defeat, the Iron Curtain descended on Europe, something that would not have happened had he not pushed the evelope...
*Due to the holocaust, the nation of Israel became a reality, which is still a reality today, and something which many people (misguided or not) give at least partial blame to current fundamentalist wackjob muslims declaring jihads...

We all know the evil stuff he did, and is obviously a terrible person... but so is Mao, and Stalin, who both killed more than Hitler did.

But, to say Hitler accomplished nothing is pretty much completely wrong. He was a psychopath/genius. Thankfully, his impact today is that we are all using him as an example of what NOT to do as a race (for the most part at least).


@ Ori -

I just responded to whether he was a better choice than Von Papen for Firaxis to chose in a WW2 scenario when they chose not to include Hitler - and I do think that their choice was informed by who would be least likely to be controversial - as such his conviction of crimes against humanity does play a role.

Click to expand...

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Hitler? Absolutely not. He was not a good leader, good commander, or even a seriously important figure in the long run of things. Politically he combined fascism with racism which to me is not a noteworthy contribution to politics or history. Besides why would I give the chance to modern nazi types to live out their what if scenario fantasy of conquering the world? Many will point to other "bloody" leaders and say why are they in the game then and that answer is simple: other meaningful contributions or innovations.
People are also making the mistake of judging someone like Genghis by the morals/laws of war that we use today which is not appropriate for true study of history. Besides that, he did do other things other than conquer and pillage such as allow free trade (The Economist did a good piece on how he was possibly the first "globalizer"). Mongols are also notorious for settling in a conquered area and adopting local customs to the point of assimilation. So Mongols will mess you up when they invade but after that is over with, life goes on like normal. Can that even be called an occupation?

kochman said:

This was from someone else's post, that didn't seem to make the thread splitting...

Click to expand...

still practicing - corrected

kochman said:

@ Ori -

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Sure
I might have some reply to the rest of your post though that needs to wait for tomorrow

Why is Hitler banned and Stalin/Mao not
1.Stalin and Mao have still group of people who admire or respect them (look at CFC). Hitler has only small group of fascists. Majority of Germans would be first who would not like to see him in game while majority of Russians and Chinese have not problem with presence of their dictators.
2.Large portion of Europe suffered and experienced Hitler´s manical regime while Stalin got only half of Europe which nobody listen and nobody cares about.
3.Denying Nazi atrocities is banned in many countries, knowledge about Nazi atrocities are well known. Denying Stalin´s and Mao´s atrocities is supported by native countries and not banned by any other country at all.

I still think that all of them should be included in WWII scenarios. Its part of history and makes scenarios realistic. I havent noticed any problem with HOI where are all historical leaders.

REDY said:

Why is Hitler banned and Stalin/Mao not
1.Stalin and Mao have still group of people who admire or respect them (look at CFC). Hitler has only small group of fascists. Majority of Germans would be first who would not like to see him in game while majority of Russians and Chinese have not problem with presence of their dictators.
2.Large portion of Europe suffered and experienced Hitler´s manical regime while Stalin got only half of Europe which nobody listen and nobody cares about.
3.Denying Nazi atrocities is banned in many countries, knowledge about Nazi atrocities are well known. Denying Stalin´s and Mao´s atrocities is supported by native countries and not banned by any other country at all.

I still think that all of them should be included in WWII scenarios. Its part of history and makes scenarios realistic. I havent noticed any problem with HOI where are all historical leaders.

Click to expand...

Those are 3 interesting points.
It makes one wonder WHY... I mean, Stalin killed over 30 Million, and Mao over 50 million, by conservative estimates.
Why are they not completely shunned?

Stalin and Mao did not leave their countries divided and a wasteland.

taillesskangaru said:

Stalin and Mao did not leave their countries divided and a wasteland.

Click to expand...

So, that made their killing 30 & 50+ million each, respectively, ok?

I don't follow the reasoning here...\

I would also argue that they both did actually... Russia still hasn't recovered, China is just now recovering. As far as wastelands are concerned.

kochman said:

So, that made their killing 30 & 50+ million each, respectively, ok?

Click to expand...

No, but it made their rule "acceptable" (I'm using this word loosely) among many survivors and the world at large. They can be compared to tyrants in the past who killed and ruled brutally but generally left their countries stronger (or seemingly stronger) than before.

I would also argue that they both did actually... Russia still hasn't recovered, China is just now recovering. As far as wastelands are concerned.

Click to expand...

After Stalin the USSR was the world's second most powerful industrial power while Mao did get a lot of reforms through which formed the basis of the modern Chinese state. After Hitler Germany was a smouldering ruin.

I disagree completely, but I don't really feel it necessary to elaborate. I think the entire premise that they are accepted for killing at least 80 million human beings because they "left their nations stronger" speaks for itself well enough.

You are not going down the right path here with your thinking...

You asked why they are not completely shunned, and you got an answer. Whether you agree with that answer on its own merits is neither here nor there as regards the question of what most people believe.

Dachs said:

You asked why they are not completely shunned, and you got an answer. Whether you agree with that answer on its own merits is neither here nor there as regards the question of what most people believe.

Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense.
Sorry, Dachs, but I didn't even notice that "most people" were responding... maybe you have some insight that I don't?
Are you saying you agree, therefore most people believe it?
Does most people believing it mean its true? Didn't most people think the world was flat for centuries?
Terrible logic.

Address the question with facts & data... not your personal interpretation based on whatever unreferenced evidence you have based your personal interpretation on.
NEXT!

Man, that remark was even worse than the previous one.

kochman said:

That doesn't even make sense.
Sorry, Dachs, but I didn't even notice that "most people" were responding... maybe you have some insight that I don't?
Are you saying you agree, therefore most people believe it?
Does most people believing it mean its true? Didn't most people think the world was flat for centuries?
Terrible logic.

Address the question with facts & data... not your personal interpretation based on whatever unreferenced evidence you have based your personal interpretation on.
NEXT!

Man, that remark was even worse than the previous one.

Click to expand...

You argued against a position that kangaru apparently believes is applicable to most people with moral arguments. I should be most interested to see you follow your own advice.

I'm sorry, but just because Kanguru claims that "the world at large" supports his idea doesn't make it right. I don't drink the koolaid. Do you? Does 10 people saying murder is ok make it ok? Ridiculous logic. In Germany in WW2 many people would tell you genocide was ok... does that mean it was in that time? NO!

I only see you trying to hoist your opinion as the accepted opinion.

You supported your own completely non-factual argument with more non-factual blither. Nice try, but you are going to have to try a bit harder to be taken seriously. Your personal feelings aside, since they are meaningless except to you...
Lame response. Try thinking first next time.