Hitler??

Status
Not open for further replies.
OxfordPferd said:
Probably Germany will have 2 leaders, but I don't think Hitler and Bismarck would be a good choice, simply because they aren't very different.
Hitler's Germany: Militaristic, Xenophobic, Expansionist, Anti-Democratic, Anti-Socialist, Economic Growth, scientific....
Bismarck: Militaristic, Xenophobic, Anti-Democratic, Anti-Socialist, Economic Growth, scientific ....
There are differences of course. Bismarck wasn't a complete madman like Hitler, he introduced social security systems and helped to keep peace in europe for a long time with his system of alliances, but nevertheless the tendencies are alike. Anyway, Hitler won't be in the game. Imagine Berlin, the holy city of Judaism, led by Adolf Hitler? Won't happen.
So if there are 2 german leaders, they should be
1. Bismarck or one of the 2 Kaiser Wilhelms to represent the conservative "Prussian" Germany
2. A more democratic/pacifist leader either from modern germany (Willy Brandt or Konrad Adenauer) or the Weimar Republik (Friedrich Ebert, Gustav Stresemann,...) or even a German Socialist from the GDR or Weimar (Karl Liebknecht/Rosa Luxemburg, Thälmann, Ulbricht, Honecker). I don't known these people are outside of Germany. Probably they'll choose some medieval king.

Sorry, but Bismarck's Germany was not, what you describe. Neither was it considerably more militaristic than any other European country of that time, nor was it more xenophobic.
It's just a simple truth that Chauvinism was a characteristic of all European powers of that time. And you wouldn't have seen more uniforms or military persons in the Berlin of Bismarck's time than in Paris or London or Moscow at the same time.
Anti-socialistic may be - but in other European countries the socialists weren't very popular, either. And as you've pointed out, the social laws in Germany were the most modern ones of the whole world. Compare the living of the workers in Germany with the living of workers in England or France...
Besides that, a lot of the members of new class of company founders contributed their mite to the public welfare by building huge residential areas for their workers which were absolutely the most modern ones of that times.
Anti-democratic - for sure. But this is true for almost any other European nation of that time as well. Do you think, Napoleon III. was a protagonist of democracy? Or the Russian Tsar? Or the Spanish King? Or the Ottoman Sultan?

Hitler was a powerful demagogue. Besides that he was just a crazy criminal, who ruined half of Europe and was the cause for the bloodiest war ever.
To compare Bismarck with Hitler is like asking about the difference between Pol Pot and any american president of the last century.

About your suggestions regarding the 'German Socialists': Most of them were criminals as well. Sure, to a much lower degree than Hitler, but they were the ones to transform 'their' state into just one big prison.

After all: there are only few historic persons who would make such a perfect leader for the Germans as Bismarck does. Due to political correctness I don't see any politician from that time after WW2, so next to Bismarck there could be Friedrich Barbarossa, Friedrich II. ("stupor mundi"), Friedrich der Grosse (of Prussia).
 
Commander Bello said:
After all: there are only few historic persons who would make such a perfect leader for the Germans as Bismarck does. Due to political correctness I don't see any politician from that time after WW2, so next to Bismarck there could be Friedrich Barbarossa, Friedrich II. ("stupor mundi"), Friedrich der Grosse (of Prussia).
I'm curious - CB you seem very knowledgable on German history - wasn't there a German leader in the Roman or Middle ages - I seem to recall reading of him. He was supposed to have founded the German country a long time ago. I can't recall his name, or whether he was a 'mythical' leader like King Arthur for example...sorry to go off topic...maybe you can direct me to a thread or site with more info. TIA! :)
 
oldStatesman said:
I'm curious - CB you seem very knowledgable on German history - wasn't there a German leader in the Roman or Middle ages - I seem to recall reading of him. He was supposed to have founded the German country a long time ago. I can't recall his name, or whether he was a 'mythical' leader like King Arthur for example...sorry to go off topic...maybe you can direct me to a thread or site with more info. TIA! :)

Hmm.. now I have to guess ...
Several names come to mind, although nobody of them really fits to whom you describe.
Let me just throw in some of the names:
Hermann der Cherusker (was the military leader how combined some Germanic tribes for a short period and killed in two Roman legions in the famous "battle in the Teutoburger Wald" [Teutoburg Forest])
Dietrich von Bern (Theoderich of the Eastern Gotes)
Karl der Grosse (Charlemagne): but he has been discussed already and may stand for a christianized Europe than for either France or Germany
Barbarossa is quite famous and wellknown in the whole of Germany, either...

[edit:] You could have meant Otto III. with the idea of "restauratio imperii"?

Maybe you would just like to send me a PM, as I notice to become more and more off-topic?
 
Personally, I don't think that Hitler will actually make it into the game. Having him in the game wouldn't really stop me from buying it. The people who want him in can easily mod him in if they choose.

Honestly, I would rather see Bismark (even though I think he was under Kieser Wilhelm) than Hitler. Granted Hitler beefed up Germany after the Wiemar Republic fell, but then he flushed it down the toilet and he was a nut to boot. One of his generals tried to assassinate him. Bismark was the one who united Germany in the first place.
 
@Commander Bello
Just to make it clear: I didn't mean to say, that Bismarck would be a bad choice. In fact, I think is a very good one to represent Germany, way better than Adolf Hitler. I wanted to say that Hitler + Bismarck as the two german leaders would be a bad combination, because their traits in Civ-terms would be similiar. Of course, in reality, he doesn't come anywhere near hitler's crimes and insanity.
You're probably right, Militarism, Xenophobia, Chauvinism etc. were present in most of europe in those days. But if you choose a leader from that period, you also choose the charcteristic traits of that period. What traits would you give Bismarck in Civ? I'd probably give him some military and economy bonuses and make him not like democracy and socialism/communism.

If they include 2 leaders for Germany, then 1 should definately be Bismarck. As the second one I would probably go for Adenauer or Brandt. Before 1871, Germany wasn't a real state. The German Empire is already represented by Bismarck. Weimar just had too many different leaders and none of them is really known in the rest of the world. Hitler is not a good leader and the GDR-leaders did only rule a small part of germany. I would have liked them as a contrast to Bismarck but I can live without them. I don't know why a post-WW2 leader would be politcally incorrect, Civ2 AFAIK had Helmut Kohl as the german leader.
 
Bismark also devolped workman's comp, social security in Germany and made the mark the common currency he was not just a warmonger
 
As much as I'd love to humuliate and degrade Hitler over and over again....I can't say I'd be in favor of his inclusion.

Those who don't live in the U.S. or continental Europe probably don't realize how many creepy neo-Nazi groups are still around. I wouldn't want to make them happy by letting them play as Hitler. Yes, I'm that irrational about it. :)
 
Hi lads! Are you really still discussing this? Hitler will not be one of the german leaders this time. A little bit sad, but I think we may survive..... ;)

Let's hope for a WW2 Europe scenario in the first CIV4 Exp. package!
 
Bismarck was in no way a warmonger. Indeed he only fought when he was convinced he would have to fight. Three wars he fought. The 2nd German Danish war was because of Danish attepts to annex Schleswig, the 7 weeks war to break the Austrian and the war of 1870/71 to break the French resistance against a united Germany. After that he prevented ww1 at least twice.
So he only went to war if he had to. So he can´t be a warmonger.

Adler
 
Bismarck was indeed no aggressive warmonger.
He was, though, extremely anti-socialistic, and highly antidemocratic. A law-and-order fanatic.
He just was smart enough to not open the fire on the demonstrants as long as there were cheaper means available: The social security system...
The pension fonds were hardly supposed to pay much - almost none of the working class reched the required age. The Health Care directly helped productivity.

As a matter of fact, Prussia was a military dictatorship in the hands of Bismarck, who hold absolute powers. He did not achive the same in all of Germany after the reunification, ok. But Wilhelm I was a puppet of Otto.

Ironically, the ill-famed Wilhelm II instead recognized the situation. While he is mocked about for giving the 'pilot' the boot order until today, his reasons to do so were highly honorable (!):
Bismarck was sick of the Socialists who still didn't love him despite his social laws, and was aiming for an open confrontation.

Quote Willi2, on Bismarcks demise:

"I don't want to spoil my first years of reign with the blood of my people."

That doesn't take away from Otto being a formidable foreign affairs politician. But, even his contemporaries saw already where his policies will lead.
Dr. Johann Jacoby, the leading politician of the opposition in Prussia, in a 1867 Prussian parlament speech:

Spoiler Original text :

Täuschen Sie sich nicht über die Folgen Ihres Beschlusses! Verkümmerung der Freiheitsrechte hat noch niemals ein Volk zu nationaler Macht und Größe geführt. Geben Sie dem ›obersten Kriegsherrn‹ absolute Machtvollkommenheit, und Sie proklamieren zugleich den Völkerkrieg! Deutschland – in staatlicher Freiheit geeint – ist die sicherste Bürgschaft für den Frieden Europas; unter preußischer Militärherrschaft dagegen ist Deutschland eine ständige Gefahr für die Nachbarvölker, der Beginn einer Kriegsepoche, die uns in die traurigen Zeiten des Faustrechts zurückzuwerfen droht. Möge Preußen, möge das deutsche Vaterland vor solchem Unheil bewahrt bleiben!«


(I'm not going to translate this prophecy en detail, since I expect only the German members to really care.)

In short, he called the upcoming Prussian military dictatorship in the hands of Bismarck a permanent thread for all neighbors, the start of an era of war, and already uses the term Völkerkrieg.

Why on Earth Bismarck is still glorified in Germany, while Jacoby is completely forgotten today, I don't know.

Commander Bello said:
Hermann der Cherusker
Arminius. 'Hermann' is the 19th century nonsense.
 
Doc Tsiolkovski said:
[...]
Why on Earth Bismarck is still glorified in Germany, while Jacoby is completely forgotten today, I don't know.


Arminius. 'Hermann' is the 19th century nonsense.

a) Because he gave the "delayed nation" a state, finally.
b) You're right. Nevertheless, the name "Hermann" seems still to be more commonly used.
 
I think one of the difficulties to find a face to represent all Germans is the fact that Germany wasn't really unified until the Prussian took over control (hence Bismarck).

We all know where it ultimately ended (WWI + WWII) and it was good that Germany stayed low key for a long time.

Germany is also very diverse, makes it harder to select 1 person to represent them all. Maybe it should not be a politician after all to represent them but one of their great poets, writers or philosophers? That would selection more interesting.
 
Vietcong said:
"Governments have been modeled on the leaders of their day. A player who interacts with India while Gandhi is at the helm will find it to be a peaceful, diplomatic nation. Trying to make peace with Hitler (if he makes the final version) will have disastrous results."
from: http://www.ugo.com/channels/games/features/e32005guide/civ4.asp


Hitler?!?! WOOT!!! that will be kick ass, but is he realy in??


If Napoleon is in, why not Hitler?
 
The PC movement is like the stain of cowardice. In a game that's going to include Napolean, Mao, and the ability to enslave a particular race of people ... on what grounds could you possibly leave Hitler out? WWII was the defining event of the 20th Century, and Hitler was the ultimate villain. In Civ III we've got human sacrifice in the Mesoamerican Conquest, and Hitler is too controversial for Civ IV?? Hitler killed the Jews, America killed the Indians, Russia & China killed their own people by the millions, the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice on a MONUMENTAL scale, until the Spanish came and killed/enslaved them. The Mongols butched half of Asia & Europe, the European Crusaders killed so many Muslims in Jerusalem the streets ran knee-deep in blood, and radical Muslim wackos in the world of today encourage their young people to strap bombs to their chests and blow innocent women & children to hell.

My apologies to any group I left out. Whatever nation, race, or ethnic group you belong to, I promise you your people have done something heinously vile in their past. Let's try to forget about all that, though, and turn a game like Civ - with it's swordsmen, battleships, and tanks - into something a bit more like Candyland. God forbid we'd upset someone with our GAME.
 
Its simply too risky for the publishers and firaxis to have Hitler in.
I agree there should be a number of different leaders for each nation, but i suppose hitler is still economic and political dynamite.
He is always there in the western modern mind as the ultimate evil.
 
Of course Hitler should be in the game, with an appropriate Civolopeda (sp?) entry describing him as the monster he was.

How can someone of his historical importance be left out?
 
Doc, I disagree with your conclusions. Bismarck was anti socialistic. But if he was still alive the people would now elect him only because he is against the SPD ;). Okay, jokes aside, Bismarck introduced the most liberal and also democratic constitution of that times (outside the US, although there minorities like the Indians could not elect!), a social security system, prevented ww1 several times and finally united Germany.
Also in that days the SPD was much closer to a KPD than today, perhaps in some way compareable with the PDS. Nevertheless he saw the poverty in the worker quaters and so he did the first steps to stop that.
But as anti Prussian you will have your opinion and as Prussian I have mine.

Adler
 
Adler17 said:
[...]
But as anti Prussian you will have your opinion and as Prussian I have mine.

Adler

Greetings from Prussian to Prussian! ;)
(Although Doc might turn now in disgust :D )
 
Ach I shall tell you why there should be no Hitler: because nobody in Germany would be allowed to buy the original game! There are some very bad laws on the books against this and other "glorifications of the Nazi dictatorship"; also an unstable political situation rightnow. SO either they would demand a toned-down version or it would make "the list."
And finaly I doubt that any German would feel properly represented by someone like that, main difference is probably that Stalin is still credited with winning the "great patriotic war" and Mao is also held in high esteem (go to china and see yourself: picture on tien-amen-gate, long lines to visit his tomb); Stalin and Mao were Victors, Hitler lost. That is why they arent "as bad".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom