An Intellectual Discussion About Leaders

[Kamenev]

@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.

Yes, it does make your point invalid. What I was pointing out was that there was a general desire to incorporate all of the Germanic peoples into one state, i.e. Germany. By your logic, all of the Germanic states should have never unified, as they had no previous history of being a whole nation state before 1871.

And you speak of a public poll to see whether Austria wanted to be part of Germany. If you look at the historical record there were so many meetings and conferences before 1871 to try and influence Austria to join. Citizens from WITHIN Austria as well participated, and many were in favor of the proposal. Just because it did not work out, does not mean that Austria lost the desire to ever join Germany completely.

As I said before, they had their own empire. After the Austrians lost WWI, they had only their country to rule, and MANY wanted to unite with Germany. Since their empire was gone, it was much easier to consider it.

And Austria went back to being its own republic after WWII because the Allies stipulated that Germany and Austria WERE FORBIDDEN to unify, as it had been FORBIDDEN after WWI (yes, Hitler defied that. Why would they forbid it if the Austrians had no desire to unify?). As the loser in a war, it is not always your choice what happens.

TODAY, because Austrians try to dodge their own guilt in WWII atrocities, they blame Germany as some kind of ruthless invader who made them join the Nazis, murder Jews, and kill Russians on the Eastern Front.

If Hitler had not started WWII, historians of German history agree that his ability to unite Germany and Austria would have seen him as the greatest statesman Germany had ever seen, for he accomplished in a few years what had been a major German discussion of total unification for over 100 years.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

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.

'Other than the holocaust' - you can't handwave away the worst atrocity in the 20th century just like that. But you can't exactly argue that Churchill led his nation to ruin etc. He was no saint, I'd agree, but none of the things in the post you're referring to were true of him.

OK, if there is one historic leader I think gets let off lightly, that's Stalin. In many ways he was as great a monster as Hitler, but some people even seem to regard him with affection. A lot of that is because the true scale of the gulag system didn't really come to light until long after the war. And of course he was our ally, and in the UK in WW2 we were encouraged to think of him as Uncle Joe so it's possible that has just lingered on in the culture.

 

[Thedrin]

A big difference between Hitler and Stalin, as far as including them in a product for sale in both of their home countries is concerned, is that Stalin is a lot more fondly thought of in Russia than Hitler is in Germany.

 

[Bill Bisco]

Hitler is not in the game because they could not sell Civ5 to Germany without removing him thus causing extra work for the developers to support two versions of the game. That's why; Germany's post-war reactionary intolerance

 

[Doctor Phibes]

A big difference between Hitler and Stalin, as far as including them in a product for sale in both of their home countries is concerned, is that Stalin is a lot more fondly thought of in Russia than Hitler is in Germany.

Point taken...

 

[Becephalus]

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.

You are aware that campaign involved the killing at least a million Gauls in an era when populations we drastically smaller than today? They frequently burnt whole cities to the ground and murdered/sold into slavery the inhabitants (and the life expectancy of the slaves was measured in months not years). Sometimes for very trivial offenses or even just for simple strategic considerations. There were also killings simply to free up some of the better lands? Did you read the book?

As for where I would get this idea? I don't know I have read maybe 200 books about Rome. It is not a fabrication, it is the truth about what happened.

You know the whole "Rome creates a desert and calls it peace" meme. That was a serious comment, not a joke.

Yes the remaining Gauls were integrated into Roman society, after all the ones who wouldn't integrate were killed.

 

[Kamenev]

You are aware that campaign involved the killing at least a million Gauls in an era when populations we drastically smaller than today? They frequently burnt whole cities to the ground and murdered/sold into slavery the inhabitants (and the life expectancy of the slaves was measured in months not years). Sometimes for very trivial offenses or even just for simple strategic considerations. There were also killings simply to free up some of the better lands? Did you read the book?

As for where I would get this idea? I don't know I have read maybe 200 books about Rome. It is not a fabrication, it is the truth about what happened.

You know the whole "Rome creates a desert and calls it peace" meme. That was a serious comment, not a joke.

Yes the remaining Gauls were integrated into Roman society, after all the ones who wouldn't integrate were killed.

All the Gauls who were murdered were killed to set an example to get the Gauls to fall in line. You used the word 'genocide,' and from my readings of Roman History the conquest of Gaul was brutal, but not some planned mass extinction of the Gaulic people. The Gauls resisted being Romanized, and they heavily paid for it. I am not denying that. But using the word 'genocide' has significant meaning.

Rome's motives were political. They were not based on some kind of ethnic hatred. I am sorry, but if you want to call it a 'slaughter' or some kind of 'exceptionally cruel warfare,' then ok. But a 'genocide' it was not.

Also, I am a historian (I admit not of this period), so I would be very interested if you could tell me the name of the book and historian who call it a 'genocide.' I have also read quite a bit dealing with this period, but I never came across the word 'genocide' in describing the war in Gaul. (And please, if it is 'popular history,' please do not bother mentioning it).

 

[Frosty_AUT]

@Kamenev:

What made part of the Austrian population sympathise with the idea to unify with Germany were the great uncertainty of whether a small republic like Austria could even survive on its own, the instability of the state, the economic crisis and last but not least, massive political pressure from its neighbors. Many Austrians did indeed wish for unification with Germany, if only because they hoped that Hitler could fix the economy (which he did, but not in the way they expected) and that they'd be safe from fascist Italy which just like Germany had a desire to annex Austria.

Without all these uncertainties, there would've been little desire for unification with Germany. A state doesn't simply give up it's national identity without VERY good reasons. Austria and Germany might've been allies in WWI but each of them pretty much fought their own war and left the other alone.

Anyway, my reason why I don't see the annexation of Austria as a great deed is that Hitler did it solely for the purpose of preparing for war. He needed Austria's gold reserves and any kind of resources he could get in his grasp, and Austria was an easy target.

TODAY, because Austrians try to dodge their own guilt in WWII atrocities, they blame Germany as some kind of ruthless invader who made them join the Nazis, murder Jews, and kill Russians on the Eastern Front.

Now you're just making stuff up. Acknowledging that part of the guilt was ours was one of the conditions for restoring Austria after WWII. I don't know how you expect a country to atone for something that most of us know only from the history books, other than condemning war in all forms and putting people in jail for denying the holocaust.

If Hitler had not started WWII, historians of German history agree that his ability to unite Germany and Austria would have seen him as the greatest statesman Germany had ever seen, for he accomplished in a few years what had been a major German discussion of total unification for over 100 years.

What KIND of historian says such things? This is utterly ridiculous from an economical point of view, as Germany would've gone bankrupt in only a couple of years if they hadn't gone to war.

 

[brianshapiro]

Now you're just making stuff up. Acknowledging that part of the guilt was ours was one of the conditions for restoring Austria after WWII. I don't know how you expect a country to atone for something that most of us know only from the history books, other than condemning war in all forms and putting people in jail for denying the holocaust.

I think German guilt itself is overplayed. If Hitler never used paramilitary brownshirts to bully people, I don't think Nazis would have ever come to power. Guilt over the Holocaust is just something used by people with different ideological and political agendas. And its about time Germany got rid of these laws that prohibit use of Hitler's image and jail people for Holocaust denial.

 

[Kamenev]

@Frosty_AUT

By making the argument that parts of Austria favored unification simply out of fear completely ignores the 19th Century trends of desired German unification which included Austria. You are taking the Post WWI views as the ONLY motivations for unification, as if everything that happened before was simply erased. I agree with your statement, but I feel you are looking at it too narrowly. What you mentioned was one aspect of the unification question.

Yes, the allies forced Austria to accept war guilt. This does not mean that Austrians themselves cannot try to escape that guilt by passing the blame to Germany. It was in every other countries interest to keep Germany and Austria divided, both before and after WWI and WWII. There was a strong desire amongst themselves to unify (yes, much less so after WWII) There is a lot of evidence to support this. I am not sure it is even debatable.

Hitler needing Austria's gold reserves... Anybody would want additional capital, but that was just a bonus. You cannot ignore all of his racial policies and desire to unite all of the Germanic peoples under one state. He outlined all of this in Mein Kampf, why are you doubting his motivations? It was not a crisis that led the Nazis to join with Austria, it was a preconceived plan.

Finally, the economic part of your arguments. Yes Germany's economy could not sustain itself, but that was because it was gearing up for war. The war was planned! You are trying to justify the war by saying that Germany was compelled to due so because its economy would not survive if it did not... some kind of economic determinism! But they determined their economy, not the other way around! It was a plan.

Remember, you cannot look at a country's devolpment outside of its historical context. The world does not work that way.

A lot of your arguments are borderline dangerous, almost providing excuses for Nazi Germany. Be careful.

 

[brianshapiro]

@Kamenev:

A lot of Austrians favored unification with Germany before Hitler ever came to power. Austria didn't have a long history of independence, for a long time it had been part of a multi-ethnic empire with a monarchy.

What are you trying to say, though? That Austrians joined Germany because they liked fascism and hated jews? Even in Germany, Nazis had a difficult time winning elections on their own until bullying by paramilitary forces. A lot of Germans agreed with part of what Hitler said, that the socialist era government during the Weimar era was corrupt, the treaty of Versailles was wrong etc. It didn't mean the majority ever supported what Hitler wanted to do. Even in Germany, Hitler didn't gain power because Germans liked fascism and hated jews.

By the 30s, there were paramilitary forces in Austria also, the Heimwehr (Home Guard), and a fascist government had taken over there also. It was not some feat of miracle, then, for a Austrian fascist government to convince a population, many of whom wanted unification with Germany since 1918, to join with another fascist government. It doesn't mean the Austrian population agreed with Nazis any more than the German population did.

 

[Kamenev]

@Kamenev:

A lot of Austrians favored unification with Germany before Hitler ever came to power. Austria didn't have a long history of independence, for a long time it had been part of a multi-ethnic empire with a monarchy.

What are you trying to say, though? That Austrians joined Germany because they liked fascism and hated jews? Even in Germany, Nazis had a difficult time winning elections on their own until bullying by paramilitary forces. A lot of Germans agreed with part of what Hitler said, that the socialist era government during the Weimar era was corrupt, the treaty of Versailles was wrong etc. It didn't mean the majority ever supported what Hitler wanted to do. Even in Germany, Hitler didn't gain power because Germans liked fascism and hated jews.

By the 30s, there were paramilitary forces in Austria also, the Heimwehr (Home Guard), and a fascist government had taken over there also. It was not some feat of miracle, then, for a Austrian fascist government to convince a population, many of whom wanted unification with Germany since 1918, to join with another fascist government. It doesn't mean the Austrian population agreed with Nazis any more than the German population did.

I can reverse your attack. Are you trying to say that the German population on the whole did not support Hitler? Your last sentence seems to say so, and that simply is not true. You will find little evidence of any resistence whatsoever. The only documented account is the 'Order of the White Rose,' and it only consisted of like 5 people, two of which were related.

For the Austrians, their interest was in German unification, not specifically for Hitler's plans. Although once incorporated Nazi programs were adopted without protest.

Also, the rise of Fascism within Austria had precursors before WWI. Ultra nationalist parties were emerging by the end of the 19th Century because the minority populations of Austria's empire outnumbered ethnic Germans. Once the Germans found themselves in the minority, extremist groups began to grow.

By your wording on Austria's 'independence,' you made it sound like Austria was not the main force behind the Austrian/Hungarian Empire, like they were somehow victims of their own rule. That would be like saying England's independence was brutalized by the British Empire, as if the populations of India, China, and Africa were bearing down on the poor English. What a strange concept.

Why is everyone trying to make Austria a victim? Is everyone in here Austrian? By making Austria the victim you are only proving my argument. Do people realize that prior to WWI they were a major political player?

Why does everyone ignore the 19th Century? Is there something at school or in people's minds that draw impassible lines at the 1900 mark, or even the year 1917?

 

[brianshapiro]

I can reverse your attack. Are you trying to say that the German population on the whole did not support Hitler? Your last sentence seems to say so, and that simply is not true. You will find little evidence of any resistence whatsoever. The only documented account is the 'Order of the White Rose,' and it only consisted of like 5 people, two of which were related.

For the Austrians, their interest was in German unification, not specifically for Hitler's plans. Although once incorporated Nazi programs were adopted without protest.

Also, the rise of Fascism within Austria had precursors before WWI. Ultra nationalist parties were emerging by the end of the 19th Century because the minority populations of Austria's empire outnumbered ethnic Germans. Once the Germans found themselves in the minority, extremist groups began to grow.

By your wording on Austria's 'independence,' you made it sound like Austria was not the main force behind the Austrian/Hungarian Empire, like they were somehow victims of their own rule. That would be like saying England's independence was brutalized by the British Empire, as if the populations of India, China, and Africa were bearing down on the poor English. What a strange concept.

Why is everyone trying to make Austria a victim? Is everyone in here Austrian? By making Austria the victim you are only proving my argument. Do people realize that prior to WWI they were a major political player?

Why does everyone ignore the 19th Century? Is there something at school or in people's minds that draw impassible lines at the 1900 mark, or even the year 1917?

Nazis weren't able to get over ~30% of the vote in fair elections, its clear that the population didn't support their rise to power.There was plenty of resistance but it it was suppressed, active dissenters were deported or sent to camps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance

Yes Austria was the main force behind the empire, it didn't mean Austrian citizens empathized with the monarchy. Nationalists in Austria supported unification with Germany, nationalism as a theory supported self-determination based on ethnicity, cultural traditions, language, etc. The importance of them not having been an 'independent' country is the Empire for many didn't reflect any traditions on which to base an Austrian nationalism. To many, there wasn't an 'Austrian' nation any more than there was an 'Prussian' nation, just a German nation.

What about ultranationalists in the 19th century? There were also anarchists and communist revolutionaries too. When Nazis took control in Germany, the second largest party was the Communists. European politics was a mess.

 

[zuraffo]

Wu zetian is not in the game only because she is a woman. She is also one of the great emperors in a long line of China's monarchs. There were basically two golden eras during the Tang's dynasty (arguably one of China's most successful dynasty), one during Tang Taizong's reign (he was the de facto founder, though not the first monarch of Tang dynasty), and another one during Wu zetian's reign.

The VO for Wu sucks though. It's hard to imagine an emperor sounding so wishy washy.

 

[Squonk]

Nazis weren't able to get over ~30% of the vote in fair elections, its clear that the population didn't support their rise to power.There was plenty of resistance but it it was suppressed, active dissenters were deported or sent to camps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance

nazis WERE able to get over 30% of votes
in 1932,
they got 38%
in 1933
they got 44%

Spoiler :

also, additional 10% of Germans voted for other ultranationalists, and even other german parties, apart from KPD, were more or less revanchist.

Nothing hurts truth as much as exagerration.
Hitler became very popular after the great crisis and became even more so after he became the ruler. But in elections he never got over half of votes, and almost 40% were given to his staunch opponents of SPD and KPD in the last elections.

 

[brianshapiro]

nazis WERE able to get over 30% of votes
in 1932,
they got 38%
in 1933
they got 44%

Spoiler :

also, additional 10% of Germans voted for other ultranationalists, and even other german parties, apart from KPD, were more or less revanchist.

Nothing hurts truth as much as exagerration.
Hitler became very popular after the great crisis and became even more so after he became the ruler. But in elections he never got over half of votes, and almost 40% were given to his staunch opponents of SPD and KPD in the last elections.

44% was after Nazis already had power, I said '~30%' because I was unsure about how much over 30% they reached. At any rate, when Hitler got in power, they had 33.1% of the vote, and once Hitler was in power, he used the government to consolidate that power further and the power of paramilitary groups (Reischstag Fire Decree, Enabling Act). Why do you think he had more votes when he controlled Germany? How many votes did Saddam Hussein's opponents win in elections?

Here's a breakdown of the 1932 federal election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932

The Social Democrats + Communists together had a greater majority than the Nazi party alone. The Nazis + the National People's Party form a small plurality, still not a majority. The Social Democrats, Communists, and Centre Party together had a larger total, but wouldn't have been able to form a governing coalition.

My point is that the Nazi rise to power wasn't based on fair elections, where there was no intimidation of voters or of Nazi political opponents, and it certainly wasn't mandated by the majority of Germans. So what exactly was Hitler's popularity? Sure a lot of people agreed with some of his grievances and complaints, and a lot of people liked the economic improvement in Germany after Nazi programs took effect. It doesn't mean Germans supported everything he did, or it was their choice he was in power.

You may think I exaggerated by saying ~30%, but I was truthful in the point I was making. Trying to hold Germans responsible for Hitler is wrong.

 

[Kamenev]

Trying to hold Germans responsible for Hitler is wrong.

This in essence is your problem. You do not want to live with the idea that Germans williningly committed such terrible crimes, but they did. Although the NSDAP did not have the majority, it did have the largest number of votes than any other party. To put the Social Democrats and the Communists together is something you just cannot do. The political parties in Germany did not have a history of working together. Look at the Weimar Republic.

If you cannot hold Germans accountable for WWII and the holocaust, who can you hold accountable? One man? That is ridiculous. By the way, wikipedia is not the best source. It is ok, but it gave you no specific information about resistence in Nazi Germany, because THERE WAS VERY LITTLE. I cited earlier the ONLY known resistence group, 'the Order of the White Rose.' Wikipedia does not tell you about other groups because they simply did not exist.

I know it makes it easier for people to just vent all of their anger on one person, because you just do not want to believe that people as a whole can do such terrible things, but by doing so the lessons of history are lost, and it makes it easier to be repeated.

To get started, you should read Christopher Browning's 'Ordinary Men.' He paints a very clear picture of ordinary Germans joining Police Battalians and the SS in order to, sometimes even jubilantly, murder Jews on the Eastern Front. These were not criminals or psychopaths, but regular Germans. Perhaps they became the latter and the former, but they were not at the beginning.

Seriously, if you blame just one person you really narrow your understanding.

 

[drachasor]

This in essence is your problem. You do not want to live with the idea that Germans williningly committed such terrible crimes, but they did. Although the NSDAP did not have the majority, it did have the largest number of votes than any other party. To put the Social Democrats and the Communists together is something you just cannot do. The political parties in Germany did not have a history of working together. Look at the Weimar Republic.

If you cannot hold Germans accountable for WWII and the holocaust, who can you hold accountable? One man? That is ridiculous. By the way, wikipedia is not the best source. It is ok, but it gave you no specific information about resistence in Nazi Germany, because THERE WAS VERY LITTLE. I cited earlier the ONLY known resistence group, 'the Order of the White Rose.' Wikipedia does not tell you about other groups because they simply did not exist.

I know it makes it easier for people to just vent all of their anger on one person, because you just do not want to believe that people as a whole can do such terrible things, but by doing so the lessons of history are lost, and it makes it easier to be repeated.

To get started, you should read Christopher Browning's 'Ordinary Men.' He paints a very clear picture of ordinary Germans joining Police Battalians and the SS in order to, sometimes even jubilantly, murder Jews on the Eastern Front. These were not criminals or psychopaths, but regular Germans. Perhaps they became the latter and the former, but they were not at the beginning.

Seriously, if you blame just one person you really narrow your understanding.

Well, I'd say it is a good bit more complicated than that (but you can't write a novel here). It certainly is important to understand the psychology of how and why normal people can do or allow such terrible things. Understanding it is possible, figuring out way, and taking steps to prevent it is the only way to make sure it doesn't happen again in another country.

 

[Exterminas]

Speaking as a german - I have been confronted with these discussions all my life - I would like to point out some things to you:

-This thread is about leaders in General, you have filled several pages with a discussion about hitler. While this certainly isn't off-topic, the result might be a little bit onesided.

-What are you arguing about? Guilt of the german people? Historians have been arguing about that questions for years. None of them had an abosolute truth and all of them had more facts than you. I wish no offence to you, but may be you should ask yourself "What is my goal in this discussion?" It looks to me as if you are only arguing for the sake of the argument and to prove eachother's opinion invalid. That's not what I would consider and intellectual discussion.
Was Hitler a nice guy? No. Was he important for history? Yes. Is it necessary to have him in a semi-historical game like civ? May be. Fraxis decided that they don't want him in their games. You can argue about that till the sun burns out, It won't change anything.

-Everybody as an expert on Hitler. Seriously. Compared to any other figure in history the man on the street knows -> a lot <- about hitler. For me the Civ-Games have always had the touch of showing me things in history, that I had overlooked in the past. Like the Zulu. The Ethiopians. The Mongols around Kubai Khan. You can sees the choice of Bismarck as an act in that direction. He is not as well known as hitler and neither are his accomplishments. There. See what I did there? I gave an argument for Fraxis' choice that didn't touch anyones feeling about the whole nazi-thing. Because these things exist. Not everything has to have a deep reason, reaching back to delicate questions about history. Someone already mentioned the PR-aspect. Would the game have sold better with hitler? Probably not. Would it have generated some complains with him in it? Probably. Imagine an animated leader screen, with hitler standing there, on a huge tribune, with a big red swastika banner in the background, preaching vigorously at the players arrival. That would get banned faster in germany than you could say "free speech" So why take the risk?

on leaders in general: To me they have always had the already mentioned function about directing attention to persons, who did great, but weren't THAT well known to the broad audience. Everybody knows Julius Ceasar. Augustus? Not that many. Montezuma the first? Naaa, who knows him? They only know that guy, that was killed by the invaders.

If you look at it this way, there are only a few exeptions on this rule in Civ5: Ghandi, Elizabeth, Napoleon are the first that come to my mind. But that's okay, because you need some famous faces to advertise with them. Noone will recognize Obu-Naba-Whatshisnameagain. EVerybody will know napoleon.

So, bottom line: Remember, it's a video game, not a history simulator. I like that aspect too, but you shouldn't get too worked up about it.

 

[Jerrymander]

-This thread is about leaders in General, you have filled several pages with a discussion about hitler. While this certainly isn't off-topic, the result might be a little bit onesided.

Almost every discussion on this board has devolved into a "why was Hitler not included in this game" or something similar. It depresses me.