Adolf Hitler

[2ndimpression]

Every country, with United States at present, is guilty of treading on other people's rights as we understand them today. Remember, we USA citizens used to expand into the lands owned by Native Americans and ruthlessly push them further and further into poorer and poorer lands. We, the prime example of democracy of this age, is culpable for devastating wars in Vietnam, Latin America, and Middle East today. So we can't really debate the past horrors of historical figures without realizing horrors of this glorious land of free and brave!

Don't forget the annexation of the philippines either...

 

[zerog117]

Funny topic.

Stalin is mentioned here many times as mass murderer.

You might want to know that official numbers of people sentenced to death during his rule roughly equals 4 millions around 20 years span (1930-1953), that including regular criminals/murderers and collaboracionists to nazis. That numbers of people imprisoned in dreaded gulag in percentage to total population are less than we have in US today and those, again, included regular criminals.

Those statistics were published in 1991 by official statistical bureau and is based on archive data rather than newspaper speculations with data sorted by years etc. The peak of repressions was in 1937-38 when around 900000 death sentences were made. But you know what? Stalin was in fact one who stopped them, there was struggle inside communist party between his group and trozkist "old-school communists", ones who were responsible for terror during civil war 1917-1921 and who tried to seize power. Yegoda and Ezhov (NKVD comissars during that period, ones who mostly carried out repressions) were repressed by Stalin. Trozky and his group were looking at Soviet Union as a mere stage before going to world-wide revolution regardless of victims, whereas Stalin and his group dropped that idea altogether and were dedicated to building socialism in single country. Do you know that Stalin before his death planned to remove communist party from ruling position and to pass power to government and parlament (deputies council which was elected just as in western countries) and that's why he put Beria as prime-minister in 1952? Some wild conspirology theories even say he was killed because of that, it would probably remain mystery but after Stalin death Beria was kidnapped from Kremlin by Zhukov and some high-ranking officers in Zhukov's car and swiftly executed as spy and enemy of the state.

Also, there in fact WERE large numbers of spies and saboteurs of all kinds in country. Because 1) Russia had a civil war few years ago which splitted society in many places and many people hated state 2) Russia at that time was surrounded by hostile states.

I do not dare say no innocent people were repressed, it was happening alot. But rather to blaming it all on Stalin please try to understand circumstances and historical conditions it was happening under. Stalin had made alot of mistakes but he wasnt mass murderer and all those "dozens of millions" killed are blatant lies.

p.s. on subject of topic - imho, hitler was historical person, and as such has every right to be presented in Civ IV. It has nothing to do with propaganding ideas of nazism.

4 million?? u actually trust the russian gov #s? try 25-50mil
ur #s didnt even include starving the ukraine and other events

 

[cr0ws]

4 million?? u actually trust the russian gov #s? try 25-50mil
ur #s didnt even include starving the ukraine and other events

Yes no kidding , this guy is either a red demon or he is seriously misinformed. I recently even heard rumors that the kremlin wants to do the same thing in Chechnya as they've done in Ukraine for resisting Ivan's bloodstained iron boot crushing them to the ground. In other words cause famine of catastrophic proportions.

 

[Talin2009]

4 million?? u actually trust the russian gov #s? try 25-50mil
ur #s didnt even include starving the ukraine and other events

800 millions, i tell ya !!!

Do you realize number of 50 millions? This is like every third adult person.

 

[zerog117]

800 millions, i tell ya !!!

Do you realize number of 50 millions? This is like every third adult person.

hilter killed 12 million in about 6 years so 50 million in 20 years is very possible

 

[Der Kantelberg]

Adding Hitler would make the mod illegal in Germany so I'm not adding it - this has been asked before too.

There is actually a german mod, which has Hitler included. Link to the german site of the BASE-Mod
I do not exactly know, wether it would be allowed or not, we have a proverb here that sais: "When there's no complainer there's no judge."


Personally, I'm german and would very strongly dislike to have him in an Mod I play.
I often play random. And i do not want to play as him. I also do not want to play against him. I just couldn't stand his face showing up demanding open borders or something else. I do not have the same problems with Stalin or Mao. Its just personal.

 

[cr0ws]

800 millions, i tell ya !!!

Do you realize number of 50 millions? This is like every third adult person.

C'mon now comrade, you don't really think the USSR collapsed because they were having too good of a time? Or the official commie excuse that it was all the "western imperialists and their banks fault" whom caused a financial famine? lol?

 

[Preytor]

I think it's more the other way around. Japan forced Roosevelt to take firmer and firmer stances with them, cutting off oil, and supplies.

In particular I was referring to Roosevelt not allowing Japan's diplomate to deliver their peace treaty, pact, can remember off hand. It was their answer to his ultimatum; they were to agree.
Anyway, he kept the diplomat waiting in some office for hours, past the ultimatum's time. With no answer from the US, Japan was forced to carry out their war.

Yes, Roosevelt did cut off oil, and supplies. He had been waging an economic war against Japan so to say.
Japan's was economically very vulnerable. It was dependent on imports of oil and other essential raw materials, as well as on foreign markets for export.

In 1939, the US canceled its 1911 trade agreement with Japan. Much more serious were the trade embargoes imposed in 1940, when the US halted exports to Japan of petroleum, petroleum products (including gasoline and lubricants) and all grades of iron and steel scrap.
America's economic warfare against Japan came to climax on July 26, 1941, when Roosevelt ordered the freezing of all Japanese assets and credits in the US. This ended all trade between the two countries. (In coordination with this, Britain and the Netherlands followed quickly with similar measures of their own.) Because Japan was largely dependent on the US for petroleum and petroleum products, Roosevelt's order threatened Japan's survival as an industrial nation.
Roosevelt's policy of "deterring" Japan through economic pressure, was deterrence that amounted to provocation.

I'd honestly like to know how/why you think Japan forced Roosevelt to take firmer and firmer stances with them.

I can't think of any reasons other than Roosevelt wanting to preserve his vision of democracy.
Roosevelt wanting to reestablish the stability of an earlier age by imposing his personal "vision" of a peaceful international order.The world before the Great Depression, before the Great War, before the Russian Revolution, above all, to the world as it existed before the rise of Germany and Japan. Only with Germany and Japan removed from international affairs.


Caveat: I don't mean to sound argumentative; I'm simply trying to explain my understanding of the events. I have a genuine interest in hearing yours.

 

[szemek77]

800 millions, i tell ya !!!

Do you realize number of 50 millions? This is like every third adult person.

I have bad news for you my friend. Historians give numbers between 20 and 50 millions.
You have to remember that he was in power for 30 years.

To say just a few words: so called Big Hunger at Ukraine costed 8-9 millions of lives.
The Purge 1937-1939 - another millions. I can give you some exact numbers of his action towards russian army during the Purge, which can show you the scale of what we are talking about. He ordered to kill:

3 of 5 marshals (Tuchaczewski, Jegorow, Blucher)
5 of 10 five star generals
25 of 25 four star generals
12 of 14 army commanders
57 of 67 corpses commanders
3 admirals
23 of 18 army commisioners
129 of 199 division commanders
200 of 379 brigade commanders
103 of 140 division and brigade commisioners
401 of 430 colonels
around 40 thousands of officers of lower range

He was a truly mass murderer. And he did a lot of indirect damage. For example, russian army suffered huge loses during the second world war. Why? During first couple of months Stalin decided that no single soldier is allowed to retreat. There were special NKWD units attached to each division or corps which executed everybody who didn't comply to this silly demand.

This are just some facts. And I mean facts, not my - so called - Polish antirussian attitude

 

[Lord Brooks]

...Can you recall when's the last time USA had a dictator of such scale as Stalin or Hitler?

You could argue that was in fact Harry S. Truman after all he was the one who authorised the launch of nuclear weapons, which could be argued as the most vile assault on any nation, with long lasting effects all over the planet, not just in Japan.

Maybe not a dictator by definition but his death toll and collateral damage must be up there with the worst of them.

 

[Afforess]

You could argue that was in fact Harry S. Truman after all he was the one who authorised the launch of nuclear weapons, which could be argued as the most vile assault on any nation, with long lasting effects all over the planet, not just in Japan.

Maybe not a dictator by definition but his death toll and collateral damage must be up there with the worst of them.

I disagree. The price of NOT using the two nuclear weapons would have been 5-6x higher in Civilian and Military deaths. Not even to mention the dollar cost of not using them.

 

[Master176281]

I disagree. The price of NOT using the two nuclear weapons would have been 5-6x higher in Civilian and Military deaths. Not even to mention the dollar cost of not using them.

Nevertheless the use of nuclear weapons is not the most positive chapter in American history. And the equation lives vs. dollar is even if not wrong ethically very arguable.

And the 5-6x higher Civilian and Military deaths are as well arguable. I know that there is a discrepancy between american historians and other ones. To be clear I will not say that these numbers are wrong but at least arguable.

 

[Afforess]

And the 5-6x higher Civilian and Military deaths are as well arguable. I know that there is a discrepancy between american historians and other ones. To be clear I will not say that these numbers are wrong but at least arguable.

Arguable? That's insulting. It's more like incontrovertible.

Go figure this:

The japanese had a (and still do) a system of honor, which prohibited them from surrendering, and caused them to fight to the last man. This guerrilla warfare cost tons of lives, on both sides. In addition, the main island of Japan was heavily fortified, and the civilian population had been heavily propagandized to believe that Americans were monsters. Any American land invasion on Japanese homeland would have ended in a 5-6 million man siege, taking years more, and would have easily killed 1/4-1/2 of the Japanese people.

I'd say that using the two atomic bombs was a pittance to that.

 

[Master176281]

Arguable is not a bad word. You have to be a little more tolerant. I see your point and I know historians that have the same position. But not all and that is all I wanted to say. These numbers are no facts because they can only be estimations. So I said you can be right maybe yes. But it is also possible that there would be less damage to civilians, who knows.

I don't want to insult anyone but why are your reactions to other opinions so harsh.

 

[civ_king]

C'mon now comrade, you don't really think the USSR collapsed because they were having too good of a time? Or the official commie excuse that it was all the "western imperialists and their banks fault" whom caused a financial famine? lol?

nah, oil price collapse was the coup de grace, the feather that broke the camels back

 

[cr0ws]

nah, oil price collapse was the coup de grace, the feather that broke the camels back

No no no, peek oil will be the collapse of USA and it's transformation into western USSR...and USSR problem was that people have had enough of all the lies, corruption, deaths, intimidation and living in terror and an never ending prison/police state.

 

[SaintRaw]

Mmm, I'm thought that the second nuclear bomb was unnecessary..
I'm told that after the first one dropped Japan already wanted to start peace negotiations..

Netherlands was stopping trade relations with Japan in 1941? Weren't we oppressed by the Germans? God bless us for inventing 'Apartheid' xD

I'm reading everything and finding it rather educational, though I do think that having Hitler should be a matter of personal taste.. For this reason he should be added as an optional component.. Then again this could result in more people wanting to remove certain leaderheads.

Banning stuff always seems to make it more interesting..

 

[generalstaff]

I disagree. The price of NOT using the two nuclear weapons would have been 5-6x higher in Civilian and Military deaths. Not even to mention the dollar cost of not using them.

I have to disagree here, the atomic bomb was unnecessary. Japan was on the verge of surrender at that point, mainly due to Russia's entry into the Pacific Theater (a major event which is overlooked in the atomic bomb debate); the Japanese were afraid that Russia would invade the mainland and execute the emperor. With Russia's entry into Pacific Theater, an American invasion of Japan would not happen, we would have let Stalin sacrifice an untold number of his men and massacre an untold unmber of Japanese like it was Eastern Europe.

There is also the issue that the American diplomats did not understand diplomacy, when the Japanese rejected the Potsdam declaration in such a way to leave the door open for peace negotiations (the only condition they wanted was immunity to the emperor, which MacArthur was planning anyways). However, the American diplomats were too stupid to understand that, combined with the presidential transition, created its own problems, namely the fact that Truman did not have the political experience to handle the end of WWII effectively.

There is also the issue that the even if one were to think the atomic bomb was necessary, there was no need to drop a second one in such a short period of time. However, it should be noted that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was initially thought to be another firebombing (a much more destructive practice, but for some reason is not as controversial) by the Japanese government at the time. I would argue that the atomic bombing allowed Hirohito to not have to abdicate (the "Bear the Unbearable" speech).

I am not going to go into Fumimaro Konoe's meeting with the emperor in 1945 before Okinawa, since it can be read multiple ways.

 

[Afforess]

Mmm, I'm thought that the second nuclear bomb was unnecessary..
I'm told that after the first one dropped Japan already wanted to start peace negotiations..

Nope. We would have, that's why America waited a couple of days to see.

 

[Lord Brooks]

I disagree. The price of NOT using the two nuclear weapons would have been 5-6x higher in Civilian and Military deaths. Not even to mention the dollar cost of not using them.

I don't subscribe to this point of view. If that had been the case why not just use one weapon or continue blockading the Japanese access to strategic resources as this was working anyway.

I think it's more likely that the USA decided to use the A-Bomb so that the Soviets didn't gain too much ground in Manchuria. Some historians argue that Japan was already sueing for peace, though we could probably argue about it all day since I doubt the truth behind the decision to use the bomb will ever come out.

I love the fact you mention the dollar cost though that hits the nail on the head for me.

The fact is that Truman did authorise the bombings and that was a very brave decision, but one that was made in the knowledge that the war would be won by the USA and therefore they would get to write their own "truth" and influence how the bombings where percieved for many years to come.