Adolf Hitler

[frankthe butler]

rommel being the figurehead would be like Trotsky being the figurehead of russia. trotsky was never in control of the country and neither was rommel or any general under hitler. making trotsky the figurehead of russia would be an even more valid choice than making rommel the same in germany; at least trotsky was seen by many as the most legitimate air of the dictatorship and he had a history of being involved in politics in addition to commanding forces, or something like that. but it's clearly preposterous to have Trotsky head Russia.

You cannot have a leader who was not in a position to govern their country.

 

[Belcarius]

You (frank) spelt my name wrong

Well, the only thing that Darwin ever led was an 80ft sail boat. Ohm and I believe that I was the one who suggested Ludendorff. But, all I'm saying is that considering that Hitler didn't always have the intrests of EVERYONE in Germany in mind ALL OF THE TIME, I just think that ANY of these men would be better than Hitler, simply because they're not ruthless, cold hearted megolomaniacs.

Have a read of A.J.P Taylor's The Origins of the Second World War sometime - the view expressed there is that Hitler was not really a raving lunatic but just a typical German politician who was essentially demonised by history. I don't think Hitler shouldn't be in the game because he is evil, but because there are people who would be offended by that and Civ should really try and stay as politically correct as possible. There are some games that are suited to that, but its not necessary for Civ.

 

[Superkrest]

gee whiz...i did not mean to start a monsterous debate..i was simpily saying that since hitler is waaay to risky to have as a leader..if people still wanted a 1930-40's type leader..maybe rommel is a better choice..thats all..not that he should be. i think the present ones are way better. dont snap frank.lol

 

[FieldMarshall]

Have a read of A.J.P Taylor's The Origins of the Second World War sometime - the view expressed there is that Hitler was not really a raving lunatic but just a typical German politician who was essentially demonised by history. I don't think Hitler shouldn't be in the game because he is evil, but because there are people who would be offended by that and Civ should really try and stay as politically correct as possible. There are some games that are suited to that, but its not necessary for Civ.

I can see that arguing with you would be difficult, since you really seem to know your stuff, even though I too am a history buff. Now, in regards as to how I described Hitler, granted, he's wasn't that bad overall, but I've always thought that a good leader is someone who looked at the people of his nation as one, unified people, not as Germans and Jews and Gyspies, etc. Hitler was someone who only supported the people who he thought were like him, a "true German" (yeah, right). Whereas, he came down uppon others (cough cough Jews cough cough) like a hammer on an anvil. So, I just think that he shouldn't be in the game just because he tried to split Germans into two seperate peoples.

 

[Telvanni]

I just think that he shouldn't be in the game just because he tried to split Germans into two seperate peoples.

Reality is that most people hated Jews, trough all of history. It's not anything new, it just wasn't that "mass-murderous", in the Middle Ages, people disliked Jews, because they where good at making money (mostly), and that's the same reason to why the poor Germans hated them after WWI, because the Versailles Agreement left Germany ruined, and Hitler blamed the Jews, and people where desperate enough to belive the man. But considering the fact that nearly all European rulers (or the people themselves) have tried to get rid of the Jews, or used them for their own advantage, I don't think that would be the reason.... poor Jews, they got a tough history!

 

[DonStamos]

I thought that Wilhelm Frick oversaw slave labor? He is known as the Prince of Terror (forgive me if I have this wrong).

I think that when the people (including myself) who say that they'd rather have a general as a figurehead than Hitler only say so because most of these men were good people, in that they didn't needlessly kill people, like Hitler and his henchmen (a.k.a. Murder, Inc. II). Look at the accomplishments that Hitler has: Rebuilding Germany, starting WW II, Holocaust ... wait... HOLOCAUST. 6-12 million dead. Who would want to play as Germany when their leader is a MASS murderer? Now, let's look at... Rommel: Led 7 Panzer Div. to victory in France, led another armored div. to victory in Russia, kicked Britain's butt in North Africa with his Africa Corps, commaned Army Group B in Normandy, participated in plot to kill Hitler.... hold on! Stop there! PARTICIPATED IN PLOT TO KILL HITLER. OK, I want Rommel. And, Rommel killed himself after the plot failed to keep the morale of the German people from sinking; it's disheartining to know that your country's greatest general tried to kill your nations' leader! So, Rommel is a better choice for a leader than Hitler in that he served the people of Germany, not just in one incident, but almost all the time. He wasn't for the Reich or Hitler -- he was for Germany.

Untrue. Rommel was not an active participant or planner of the July 1944 assassination attempt on Hitler. He did, however, discover the plot, and realizing Hitler's disasterous track record thus far, opted not to tell the man. After the attempt, which Hitler survived with the help of an oak table and a lazy general who kicked the briefcase further down the table from Hitler, he found out that Rommel had indeed known the plot and not told him.

Rommel was then given a choice: suicide or retribution against himself and his family. Rommel chose suicide while in a car after being picked up by the SS by swallowing a cyanide tablet IIRC. Rommel then recieved a state burial, which was Hitler's recognition of Rommel's fame throughout Germany.

Therefore the effort to keep German morale from sinking was Hitler's and not Rommel's. Honestly, if Eisenhower had somehow met an untimely end during World War II, American morale would have sunk quite a bit. Japan's did after the US assassinated Hirohito by shooting his personal fighter out of the sky in the Pacific. It only stands to reason that Hitler, a politician above all, would recognize the consequences if he revealed Rommel had known the plot and committed suicide. I do not remember what the "official" cause of death was, however.

 

[FieldMarshall]

Therefore the effort to keep German morale from sinking was Hitler's and not Rommel's. Honestly, if Eisenhower had somehow met an untimely end during World War II, American morale would have sunk quite a bit. Japan's did after the US assassinated Hirohito by shooting his personal fighter out of the sky in the Pacific. It only stands to reason that Hitler, a politician above all, would recognize the consequences if he revealed Rommel had known the plot and committed suicide. I do not remember what the "official" cause of death was, however.

You mean Yamamoto.

 

[Japanrocks12]

No Hitler should not be in. After what he did, he doesn't deserve a chance. The are SEVERAL German contenders, pick from them

 

[frankthe butler]

i think i've lost track of the yeas and nays. why don't we have a vote?

 

[DonStamos]

Yeah I meant Yamamoto. I was more interested in making the point of Hitler glorifying Rommel to keep morale up to make sure I put the right name down for Japan

Bad, bad me

 

[FieldMarshall]

Bad, bad me

No, no. I do that all the time!

 

[Kurioku]

Well first off, when Hitler first ordered the construction of the Autobahn it was called Adolf Hitler's road, and secondly, the autobahn actually was more effective for the Americans toward the end of the war, then it was to the Germans when it was built or during the war, rail was more useful to them.

someone missed the point.

 

[Kurioku]

I would have to say that many might be offended by Hitler being in the game (Poles,Russians,French,Jews,Homosexuals,Gepsies,Germans(mostley),Americans,British,Hungarians,Czechs,ect,ect). Hitler brings back not too old bad memories, and is not the greatest leader over all honestly. He wasn't the greatest strategiser (i.e. invading Russia and fighting Briton). He might of made a modernized and large army and brought a economy back from depression, but he has done nothing positive for the world, execpt maybe the Volswagon, wait no, that sucks. sorry for bad spelling.

that is a good point being as hitler sucked ass so much that he cojured control of a large part off the world and lost it in less then 3 years. He was just a postal worker by standerds of greatness.

 

[FieldMarshall]

that is a good point being as hitler sucked ass so much that he cojured control of a large part off the world and lost it in less then 3 years. He was just a postal worker by standerds of greatness.

Hmmm... postal worker... why didn't the unibomber send him a bomb?

 

[ThePersian]

I think Hitler should be included, to just cut Hitler out of history would be a joke in understanding much of what has shaped the world.

I will not argue Hitler as good or bad, generaly his ideals were the suffering of many. Keep in mind that it was Hitler that assulted the powerful Soviet Union, imagion if the soviet Union had not been weakend by 20 million poeple. Had it not been it is possbile that an even more organized evil would govern the world. Also we tend to look at only modern Leaders as evil. It is very possible that the aztec King commited atrocities (20 000 sacrifises to the sun god) equal (time comparison) to what hitler did.

To leave Hitler out would be a complete joke. I would understand not putting his picutre in the game and not having him as a leader for the Germans. But if they make a campaign i would be shocked not to see him there.

And to the ealier post. You cant say everyone hated the jews. Estine lived in that era and the world loved him. though the social nature of teh jewish culture did effect some countries economicly (Ie Germany), but even now most banks are Jewish owned. I hate it when people suggest the Jews had the worst in the war. I understand 6 million people is a large number. But to thoes that have studied history much of your simpithy should be given to the Russian and Chinise. Its intristing how the media has made the WWII seen only related to the Jews, when grater atrocities where commited againts the Chinise and Russian (POWs).

I think the things hitler did in his era were important in turning the tides of civilization. He was not smart (his book Main Kumfp) proves that. But to think of hitler doing all this on his own is remarkable. Becuse Hitler needed the support of the German poeple. So unless we are suggesting that a civ had nothing to do with its action sure leave Hitler out. But the history of the German people withot Hitler would be in question. Therefore you might as well leave the Germans out.

Oh and to thoes who know thier history well. Many historians belive the final solution of Hydrichs idea. Hitler gave the project to Hydrich, he held a top secret meeting with generals and decided on the Final solution (what killed the 6 million jews, the germans called this the susage factory). So its very wrong to inflict the actions on just Hitler. Hydrich was the one who was given the assignment to manage the Jewish population problem (6 million people +the 10 million in Russia is no easy task). So do not over simplify by suggesting Hitler was alone in this.

I would like to call the Dresten Bombing in question, was it not ruthless to bomb this city by the allies? War is not as simple as good/bad. Radicalism is the cause of another evil. Sure there might be periods of evil in civilizations and i belive a fair share have had their horns out, especily Hitler.

I know its not even worth suggesting they will put Hitler in, The Germans for one will send complaints. But as a person commited to History i cant acpet saying hearing

"I don't think Hitler shouldn't be in the game because he is evil " as a reason to leave him out. Take evil out of History and all you got is Gundi. Thats what i think, for the sake of Historical importance i would want him there, it doesnt mean his special ability should be cleanse your populations of all religons.

 

[ThePersian]

Oh and after the fall of Hitler the world became much more peaceful. Would the U.N really have taken place? Would women have voting rights? and would we have the human rights?

In history it some times requires a period of mass evil to give way to a new understnading of the human nature. If we face complete evil we are able to change things for the better.

The human rights have saved much more lives than thoes lost in war. I think Hitler should be in!

 

[FieldMarshall]

Well, I'd have to agree with you on that. I myself forgot about the 14 million some-odd Soviet civilians and the 30 million Chinese who perished, and Heidrich. But, what make Hitler such a contorvercial figure is that he's the root cause to all of this (except the 30 million Chinese). Were in not for him, a good 20 million people would still be alive.

 

[Belcarius]

While I still am opposed to having Hitler on the merits that there are other, less contraversial Germans than him, I read something that really made me sat up and think the other day.

Many of you I'm sure will have heard the name Pol Pot. He's infamous for being responsible for the deaths of 1.7 million Cambodians in the 'killing fields'. Now most people normally rank him below Hitler in terms of evil deeds.

Well, aside from killing 1.7 million, Pol Pot aka Saloth Sar basically destroyed almost everything that was civilised about Cambodia. It was more than a purge of Western ideas, it was a blatant attack on the society itself. Khmer Rouge officers destroyed everyday things we would take for granted like typewriters, books, electrical goods, etc. He forcivly turned Cambodia into a repressive economy, where people were forced to do manual labour not because of ideology but from persecution. Any of the wealthy or middle class were taken away, false confessions extracted from them and executed. A common phrase used by the Khmer Rouge was 'Show me your hands', and those with clean hands were judged enemies of the state.

Now, Hitler made many positive improvements to Germany's economy in his early years. Who really is worse?

 

[nutnutwin]

Then Napoleon has to be the second French Leader?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Having Hitler in the game would mean that Firaxis can't sell the game in Germany and probably some other countries.

As simple as that.