Adolf Hitler

[Belcarius]

Hitler= 6.000.000+ Kills
Stalin= 50.000.000+++++++????? Kills
Mao= 30.000.000+++ Kills

Compared to those guys, Hitler looks almost like a saint......

Hitler's figure is about twice as big - the one you have included is just Jews. It doesn't take into account Gypsies, Homosexuals, Political enemies, Slavs, Russian POWs and other unfortunates.

 

[Karaman]

It does not matter if you kill a man or 10 million men. You are a murderer anyway!
The point is how to make it gallantly, so that the Great Powers dont turn against you

1. justifiable measures
2. expendable souls
3. plausible deniability

Master these and you can reduce you county to 1 man. Yourself!

 

[d4rKi]

Mh, Hitler is the main reason for World War II (or at least the symbol for it), so I guess you should count every single dead soldier and all the victims at least in Europe as his fault...I actually don't know any numbers (Wasn't there a saying like "The death of one is a tragedy but the death of millions is just a number"?) but I guess anyway *enough* died ...

I still think that it's more logical to include Mao than Hitler. The VR China still exists while the 3rd Reich only lasted about 10 years (or less - long enough, anyway). So if Firaxis talks about "China" I guess they talk about the VR China & Mao was leader -kind-of-founder- of this country. While if Firaxis acts like "3rd Reich" and "Germany" is the same - then I don't know what's wrong with them. So if they want to include Hitler as a leader they should call it German Reich or 3rd Reich or whatever ... hum. Of course it's a bit difficult to explain Stalin this way and honestly I don't remember to much about Russian history - German historical school eduction focuses more on the middle ages and World War II

Maybe I'm taking this discussion too serious or something - but ppl here wright about "forgetting what happened" (don't remember who it was) and this confuses me a bit...just a few weeks ago another monument was finished in Berlin (only for the purpose that no German ever forgets what happened). I just don't think that a game like Civ4 is the right place to remind someone of something like that. Should be enough to include the fascists in the historical description of Germany.

Whatever (I really like that smilie )

 

[Himalia]

I think Karamans sig sums up World War II pretty well and the German attitude towards World War II seems to follow that guideline which is a good thing.

 

[Superkrest]

Hitler's figure is about twice as big - the one you have included is just Jews. It doesn't take into account Gypsies, Homosexuals, Political enemies, Slavs, Russian POWs and other unfortunates.

stalin still far out killed hittler...but by no means does this make hitler a better person...stalin was on our side...hittler wasnt..and had hittler been in power as long as joseph....well...the numbers may be different ...but the great purges and prison camps in the gulag killed alot more people then hittler.(just for number correctness) so people need to stop saying..well if stalin why no hitler? stalins crimes were hidden from the world alot longer..not untill the early 90's did alot start to come out. stalin had such distrust about his "little gogs" that many paid the ultimate price

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

Regarding the question if Hitler should be included in the game, Hitler's doings are not important.

What's important (and what most people here don't seem to understand): If Hitler led the Germans in Civ4, the Civ-designers would associate Germany with Hitler. Hitler would be the most representative leader of Germany in their view.

This would be outrageous! I wonder how you (yes, YOU!) would feel, if the worst and most despicable leader of your nation would be portrayed as the most representative of your nation in that game.

If people still think, that Hitler is the "best" choice for Germany, because he's the most important leader - then it's sad and outrageous. In that case, Civ4 should directly go from the stores into the trash.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

Actually this is a common misconception, Hitler actually killed more, however when we refer to the Final Soultion we immediatly the 6 million Jews who died, you forget the 5 million others, Czepies, Political dissentants, etc who were exterminated. Both the 6 million and the 5 million make 11 million whereas Stalin killed 10 million, but he did not signal out any one group, besides the Church.

I'm quite certain that Stalin killed far more than that, not to mention the millions he allowed to starve. Hitler as well can be blamed for a war that cost 60-70 million lives, 20+ million of them Soviet. Might as well throw Mao in here as well - Mao: ten parts bad, no parts good - for the tens of millions that he too killed.

Let's face it, when you start talking about the tens of millions of people that Mao, Stalin and Hitler killed, who came "first" no longer really matters.

I think Hitler should be included. Let's face it, nowadays when idiots talk about Germany, the first person that inevitably comes to mind is Hitler.

Fixed.

"Hitler" should not be the first thing an intelligent person thinks of whenever Germany is mentioned.

 

[dariusII]

Maybe to please the germans, Hitler can have his own race...The Aryans..

2 different Tribes, The Germans And the Aryans

Bismarck king of one, Hitler the other?

The Aryans?

Hitler as head of an Indo-Iranian nation? That wouldn't make any sense, as this group of people settled in around Iran, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.

If you mean the "master race", well that was a figment of someone's demented imagination - not to any specific nation.
So this is no solution.
Indeed, the only solution to this one is "Hitler, you are the weakest link - Goodbye!"

 

[Karaman]

There were no such thing as Aryans race connected to Germans. Hitler's ideas about that were just propaganda and plagiarism from other sources.

 

[sir_schwick]

Also, Mao did not have malicious intent when the 30 million people died during the Great Leap Forward. They were the victims of very bad economic theory and ideology, not war or genocide. Mao was an idiot but not a sociopath. I too wish idiocy was a crime, but then most leaders in history would be criminals.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

Also, Mao did not have malicious intent when the 30 million people died during the Great Leap Forward. They were the victims of very bad economic theory and ideology, not war or genocide. Mao was an idiot but not a sociopath. I too wish idiocy was a crime, but then most leaders in history would be criminals.

I wouldn't be so sure . . .

(From the link that I posted)

"He was a mass murderer on an even bigger scale than Hitler or Stalin – and unlike them, he took a sadistic pleasure in watching films of his victims being tortured and killed.
. . .
From the start of his career, he killed people, mainly in order to terrorise everybody else into submission. In the Communist-ruled enclaves of south-central China in 1931-35, he oversaw the killing of 700,000 people. In the Yenan enclave in the north where he sat out the Japanese invasion (systematically sabotaging any Nationalist attempts to create a co-ordinated anti-Japanese front), he had at least a million killed.
. . .
His senior Communist colleagues found the courage to sideline him after that, but he fought his way back into power by instigating the Cultural Revolution of 1965-67, an upheaval that brought torture, humiliation and death to millions and purged the Party of his rivals. By the time he died in 1976, according to Jung Chang’s reckoning, Mao had been responsible for some 70 million deaths: not even Genghis Khan had killed so many Chinese.
. . .
His personal life was as self-centred and self-indulgent as his politics. He had 50 palatial official residences scattered all over China, furnished with flocks of young women whom he worked his way through tirelessly. He neglected his wives and his children. And he didn’t take a bath for 25 years. The book is an indictment both of the political and the personal Mao that is so unrelenting and comprehensive that it invites disbelief – but the documentation is overwhelming."

 

[doronron]

According to the historical works of Mark E. Rogers, Stalin and Hitler had a running bet to see who could kill off more Russians. Stalin won.

 

[sir_schwick]

I am aware of the literature of which you speak. While not having read it personally, Moa: Ten Parts Bad, No Parts Good, does not jive with other resources I have read on China during Mao's reign. This includes personal accounts from Chinese authors, biographies, historical examinations, etc. Also, some of those accusations do not even make sense. We could get into an argument here, but there was an entire thread of Mao where I posted.

 

[Superkrest]

if people want a leader from that "power era" of german history, why hasnt anyone proposed someone like rommel? would have alot of the same traits of a leader that hitler would. but without the controversy

 

[FieldMarshall]

Hitler and Stalin are probably the wost men in history. And again, a kill one man, you're a murderer, you kill millions, and you're still a murderer. The only difference between the two is that Stalin killed without reason, not even a ridiculous one like "these people are the reason for us loosing WW I and having a bad economy," while Hitler had a (stupid) reason -- the one written above. Stalin just sent people he didn't like or thought wern't partiotic enough to the gulags or just outright killed them. And yet, in Civ III, Stalin was the name of one of the Great Leaders that might apperer when one of your units won a battle, while Hitler was not. And even then, Stalin wasn't a general, just a politician. Hitler, though not a great one, still knew something about strategy, and was a politician, and yet he wasn't one of those leaders. Now, I'm by no means favoring EITHER man, but still, Stalin was worse.

Oh, by the way, I apologise for my cursing in my last post. I thought you were allowed to censor yourself by not tryping the full word. It won't happen again! So again, sorry!

 

[sir_schwick]

If you want to talk about power era, why not Frederick Barbarossa;a brilliant leader who Machiavelli would be proud of any day. He conquered Russia, became a Pope, and united many German states for a short while. He is at least better than one of the Hapsburgs.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Conspiracy.... widely considered among all my history teachers to be THE movie to watch about the Final Solution.

Conspiracy was a typical Hollywood movie, complete with the "good German" who recoiled in horror at the thought of killing of the Jews. More moralizing and distortion of history. The Wannsee conference was more straightforward then that, all the Nazis already knew what they were going to do. Kenneth Branagh was a poor choice to play Heydrich also, IRL Heydrich was a very chilling person. It also annoys me to see jewish actors playing Nazis, as it takes away from the realism. Still, it was an ok movie from the standpoint of ENTERTAINMENT. If you want a true perspective on the way things were in Nazi Germany, I would suggest reading some historical works, not watching modern movies about it.

Telvanni, since Hitler started WWII, many ppl hold him responsible for all the casualties in Europe, on the order of 30 million plus. I think there would have been some kind of conflict in Europe again regardless of whether Hitler would have gotten into power, though.

 

[FieldMarshall]

If you want to talk about power era, why not Frederick Barbarossa;a brilliant leader who Machiavelli would be proud of any day. He conquered Russia, became a Pope, and united many German states for a short while. He is at least better than one of the Hapsburgs.

I agree. As an alternative to Hitler, it would be better to have Fredrick Barbarossa as a leader, simply because, he did almost everything Hitler did, except kill 12 million people needlesly.

 

[brinko]

If you want a true perspective on the way things were in Nazi Germany, I would suggest reading some historical works, not watching modern movies about it.

What is it that makes u think that I have not? What is it that u think i have missed? what is it that u try to gain by posting such an ignorant, flip flopped reply?

Anyways

The only reason i suggested hitler as being an alternative leader for germany, was for the possibiltity of "extra units" and "improvements"

1. Flak Towers (which still stand today)
2. V1 and V2 Rockets (before cruise missles)
3. Nebelwerfers (rocket artillery) ((even though the russians were the first to use rockets in the war, one day before the germans))
4. POW Camps (isnt it murder not to take prisoners???)
5. Big Bertha and Family ( yes i know hitler didnt invent them, but he glorified them )
6. Heisenberg (does this ring a bell? Ivan, have u read this one?)

In a Nut SHell

Hilter was the son of war, he had all the toys, but not enough, and obviously he didnt know how to share, and make friends.

 

[brinko]

if people want a leader from that "power era" of german history, why hasnt anyone proposed someone like rommel? would have alot of the same traits of a leader that hitler would. but without the controversy

i thought of that, but he was only a general...although he was a brilliant man...Desert Fox...would it be appropriate to hail him as king?