Doesn't hold up. Look at Montezuma, Alexander, Napoleon.
An Intellectual Discussion About Leaders
- Thread starter Justicex
- Start date
Doesn't hold up. Look at Montezuma, Alexander, Napoleon.
There are throughout history many leaders who did monstrous things to other civilizations and to their own. There are, however, very few leaders who truly were monsters...Adolf Hitler was one of those very few. He will never have nor merit any semblance of respect from the majority of mankind. For all time. His legacy as humanity's greatest enemy is why he will never be a Civ leader or prominent character for any game.
OtterVomit
Chieftain
Long time lurker finally making a debut here...
I'm the type of player that likes to role-play alternate world histories, and IMO Hitler impacted modern history more than any other single person - even if he ultimately failed in his objectives. Personally ever since Civ 1, I have always wished that Hitler could be in the game for that reason. Other leaders who were ultimately not good for their respective nations (Napoleon springs immediately to mind) are included based solely on the impact they had on the world during their reign.
That being said, I completely understand why Hitler is not included.
While it is true from a purely intellectual standpoint that other Civ leaders were just as brutal (if not more so) than Hitler, the reality is that the general perception of Hitler is far worse than perhaps any other leader in history. Due to things like Hitler generally being credited with starting (and subsequently losing) the most destructive war in human history, his spearheading the holocaust, the fact that some of his victims are still living, and because his enemies were able to choose which aspects of his regime history would ultimately focus on, he still evokes strong emotion on a personal level in many people.
I guess in short in regards to Hitler: It's still too soon.
I'm the type of player that likes to role-play alternate world histories, and IMO Hitler impacted modern history more than any other single person - even if he ultimately failed in his objectives. Personally ever since Civ 1, I have always wished that Hitler could be in the game for that reason. Other leaders who were ultimately not good for their respective nations (Napoleon springs immediately to mind) are included based solely on the impact they had on the world during their reign.
That being said, I completely understand why Hitler is not included.
While it is true from a purely intellectual standpoint that other Civ leaders were just as brutal (if not more so) than Hitler, the reality is that the general perception of Hitler is far worse than perhaps any other leader in history. Due to things like Hitler generally being credited with starting (and subsequently losing) the most destructive war in human history, his spearheading the holocaust, the fact that some of his victims are still living, and because his enemies were able to choose which aspects of his regime history would ultimately focus on, he still evokes strong emotion on a personal level in many people.
I guess in short in regards to Hitler: It's still too soon.
I think the overarching problem here is that Paradox's games don't get any PR at all.
How would you have Makhno? He could not represent the Ukraine. He fought nationalist Ukrainian forces during the Russian Civil War. The only way he could be in the game would be if he were the leader of some kind of Anarchist league. Very strange indeed.
This is a joke right? Did you read his book about the conquest of Gaul? Genocide! lol
Let's keep the topic more serious, this was supposed to be an intellectual conversation.
Nowhere in his book does he describe the ruthless slaughter of every single Gaul they saw. Gaul's were killed of course, the same as in any war. But to say that he actively pursued genocide is more than just a stretch, it is a blatant lie.
What purpose could it possibly serve to make such a wild accusation? Your comment was a complete and total fabrication.
He even allowed the Gauls in the Roman Senate! You throw around the word 'genocide' as if it is a joke. I assure you that it is not.
Frosty_AUT
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 85
jtb3566 said:
What are you saying? Austria + Germany is like France + Belgium or USA + Canada. They might be connected by language, but each of them has their own culture, mentality and ideals. Unifying a nation is one thing, but Austria and Germany were never one nation in the first place.
Actually the idea of unifying Austria and 'Germany' was an idea that had been floating around since before Hitler was born. It was even debated upon Germany's unification in 1871. There were some who did not want Germany to unify at all if Austria was not included. This was a MAJOR issue, not just a side note in history.
I am sorry but your comparisons about the USA/Canada and about France/Belgium are wrong. It was a completely different situation.
I feel like the history police on this thread, but some things need to be corrected. Opinions are one thing, but absolute false statements are another.
For a very long time, Austria was the strongest state of the Germanic nation. They were not excluded from the unification in 1870 because they were not Germanic. They were excluded because they were one of the strongest German states and their only serious rival within that group, Prussia, did not want any serious opposition to its authority within a unified German state.
...not to mention Austria already had its own empire, and it was not so willing to give it up just for the betterment of a unified German state.
I recommend doing so. Brilliant political strategist on the international stage.
When Napolean left power, France was still one of the strongest nations in the world.
When Hitler left power, Germany was in ruins.
There is a huge difference there.
Same thing with Ceasar. I don't know about Montezuma, but really who else would you pick to lead the Aztecs?
When Hitler left power, Germany was in ruins.
There is a huge difference there.
Same thing with Ceasar. I don't know about Montezuma, but really who else would you pick to lead the Aztecs?
Doctor Phibes
Prince
Mostly kidding. Perhaps an anarchist Catalunya though. of course, it couldn't have a leaderhead. Anarchism might make an interesting addition to the civics in Civ4...
Frosty_AUT
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 85
@Kamenev:
So you're saying that just because a unification of Austria and Germany was debated long before Hitler's rise to power, that this invalidates any of my points?
Germany and Austria are two different countries and don't historically belong together. Unlike the former East/West Germany or the current North/South Korea, they were never one nation in the first place. So unless there was a public poll on the matter with a positive outcome, any kind of unification would be illegitimate. Seeing how Hitler circumvented such a public poll in fear of a negative result and how it only served his own warmongering efforts instead of the wellbeing of the population, his annexation of Austria was clearly illegitimate and as such, it was in no way an archievement that would make him a "great leader". Seeing how Austria was made an independent republic again after WWII, this only serves as further evidence.
So you're saying that just because a unification of Austria and Germany was debated long before Hitler's rise to power, that this invalidates any of my points?
Germany and Austria are two different countries and don't historically belong together. Unlike the former East/West Germany or the current North/South Korea, they were never one nation in the first place. So unless there was a public poll on the matter with a positive outcome, any kind of unification would be illegitimate. Seeing how Hitler circumvented such a public poll in fear of a negative result and how it only served his own warmongering efforts instead of the wellbeing of the population, his annexation of Austria was clearly illegitimate and as such, it was in no way an archievement that would make him a "great leader". Seeing how Austria was made an independent republic again after WWII, this only serves as further evidence.
WastedEfforts
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2010
- Messages
- 41
Hitler is greatly overhyped. He's also not that much of the giant monster some make him to be (he got nothing on Mao or Stalin). Frederick and Bismarck are far better choices for being Civ Leader.
I wish you could go back in time and use that argument on Bismark regarding his unification of Prussia and the other germanic states besides Austria.
When the germans went into Austria, they were largely greeted by cheers and a happy populace who saw it as a good thing. Naturally after the terrible evils of the Nazis were revealed and they lost the war, Austria wanted to distance themselves from Germany (and did so).
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
The main reason Hitler has never been in any Civ game is financial. The game won't sell in Germany if Hitler's there, so Hitler isn't there. End of story.
Plenty of mods exist to add him in to previous civ versions though, and no doubt mods will add him into this version. If you want him there, then add him when someone creates the content. That's really all there is too it.
Plenty of mods exist to add him in to previous civ versions though, and no doubt mods will add him into this version. If you want him there, then add him when someone creates the content. That's really all there is too it.
Much of that, other than the holocaust, could be said about Churchill, yet nobody complains when he's in or out. History's really whitewashed the blood on his hands. Just goes to show you what future generations will be taught about Bush.
Similar threads
- Locked
