An Intellectual Discussion About Leaders

[Cashie]

Enough with with Hitler - it's illegal to depict him in Germany/Europe. Yes, Mao, Stalin etc. were worse number-wise than him, blah blah blah

I agree with most choices: no problem with Catherine. Wu Zetian is an interesting choice for China, less influential than Mao, Qin Shi Huangdi or even Sun Yat-sen - but certainly a great ruler in her time. I liked Ming Taizu in Rhye's.
Oda Nobunaga was a bit odd for Japan, but I was getting sick of seeing Tokugawa Ieyasu - and without WWII leaders there's no way they'd have Hirohito. I'm sure there'd be some taboo, anyway. The Meiji Emperor would have been a great choice though, since he's the father of modern Japan.

One thing that bugs me is seeing "Augustus Caesar" instead of Caesar Augustus. I know I'm nitpicking, but it's not that hard to get right.

 

[Venger]

Much of that, other than the holocaust, could be said about Churchill, yet nobody complains when he's in or out.

Excuse me, sir, but no, no it could absolutely not be said. Churchill did not lead his nation to ruin, not in the least, it is to his credit he helped save his nation in it's darkest time. It is in saving England and Europe FROM Nazi Germany that the British Empire was dissolved, it's treasure and power spent, not because Churchill made a megalomanical play for continental dominance. The acts of Hitler were the cause of the decline of the British Empire, not the acts of Churchill (oops, was Stalin).

There is precious little sir in common between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler, and to suggest there is should bring infamy to your name.

History's really whitewashed the blood on his hands. Just goes to show you what future generations will be taught about Bush.

Two absolutely insufferably foolish comments in one post. This post is almost certainly the most abjectly backwards and incorrect opinion stated on the Internet today. You win!

 

[Venger]

AND to the original post... as stated, there are two very good reasons Hitler is out, because of European laws and because Hitler turned the most Epic Win into the most Epic Fail in history. From the brink of poverty and degradation, renewed Germany into a continental power, only to fail to see the difference between reach and grasp, and drive his nation in a few short years into the abyss.

Had he not launched Barbarossa, he'd be in Civ. And in statue form all over much of Europe... but evil cannot stop itself, and exhausts itself atop the dead.

 

[brianshapiro]

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.

Just like you'd agree Russians are responsible for Stalin's purges right? Or am I wrong about that?

In Germany, if the Communist Party and the Social Democrats were able to get just about 5% percent of the vote, they would have created a governing coalition, and would have passed pretty radical policies. There was already a group in the SDP influencing the platform to make it more radical in order to appeal to Communists. The 1925 SDP platform "called for the transformation of the capitalist system of private ownership of the means of production to social ownership". Probably like in Russia, the Communists would have eventually muscled their way into power, because the SDP would have been in the same position the Mensheviks had in Russia.

So then, Germans were just as much responsible for the fact that a Communist dictatorship could have occurred there as for the fact that a Fascist dictatorship actually did.

The problem wasn't one man. The problem was massive social, economic, and political upheaval, and extreme ideologues being able to take advantage of that upheaval, demagogue, and use dishonest rhetoric to appeal to discontentments. And there were just as extreme views on the left as there were on the right. Leftists might just as well have won, like they did in Russia. Likewise, there were many men and not just Hitler who participated in horrific acts. Times of upheaval bring out people's dark sides and lead them to justify those things. During the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution, not only aristocrats, but prostitutes, and any groups considered immoral, were executed.

The Wikipedia article talks about documented protests in the Catholic church, among leftists, etc., You think those 18% who voted Communist just decided to like Hitler? You think the Catholics who were targeted by him just decided to like him? His political enemies were sent to concentration camps.

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller

And yes, there were racial resentments and anti-Semitism existed. But there was always anti-semitism and Germans had lived through hundreds of years without mass murdering Jews, so the question is why it occurred in the 1940s.

 

[usi]

Wu Zetian: Personally I'd rather see Cao Cao ordering his great generals to conquer the world. In what aspect was Wu better than Cao Cao anyway? She became famous in China mostly because Jiang Qing, Mao's wife, tried to propagate (through TV programs) that her decisions including the Cultural Revolution might be oppressive but good for people, just like Wu's government was. As a result of the propaganda, Wu received too much credits than what she ever deserved.

Oda Nobunaga: I think he was a good choice. Unification of Japan was mostly done by him, and Tokugawa was just patient and lucky. Moreover, based on a poll in Japan on 2007, Oda was chosen to be the most popular historical figure (11.9% of votes).

 

[w00tm0ng3r]

Personally I feel the least forgivable absence is Genghis Khan. From a world impact perspective he was THE big thing in Asia during the middle ages and even impacted Europe. There's a very good reason the advent of the Mongols is such a big deal in Medieval Total War. From a contribution to country perspective, the man is utterly unrivaled. If that were the only consideration, no leader deserves to be here more than him. He took a bunch of disparate steppe clans that were constantly at each others' throats and rated a couple notches below "insignificant" to Song China, much less the world, forged them into a united country, and conquered the largest land empire the world has ever seen. Not long after he died, Mongolia is again relegated to "middle of nowhere ville" on the world stage. In fact, I would wager than his rule is the ONLY thing the vast vast majority of the world knows about the Mongols, and that his and maybe Kublai's are the only Mongolian names most of the world know.

As a Chinese person, I also feel that Wu Zetian is a lot less significant than Sun Yat-Sen, Qin Shi Huang, or Mao Ze Dong. Hell, I've never even heard of Wu Zetian before, and I'm sure lots of other people haven't either. Qin Shi Huang first united the country (hell it's named after him!) and started 2,000 years of dynastic rule. Sun Yat-Sen is universally considered the father of modern China, is the ONLY man BOTH the communists AND Taiwan love, overthrew the last dynasty, and is today considered one of China's greatest leaders. He's also shockingly never appeared in a Civ game (or any other to my knowledge!) in case people were getting tired of the regulars. Mao Ze Dong pretty much speaks for himself... everyone knows who he is and what he did.

Oda is a good choice for Japan though. He came pretty close to uniting Japan. Hideyoshi and Tokugawa just finished what he started. Catherine is also good for Russia. Really there's only about 3 choices: Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, or Stalin with greater priority for the first two. Ivan the Terrible could be a consideration, but he did less great things than Peter or Catherine.

I also think they should've had more African civs... I mean really there's only one... Shaka and the Zulu at least should've made the cut.

 

[JudgeDeath]

Mao has been in Civ games.

 

[Thedrin]

FrostyAUT:
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.

Argument collapses here. Austrians are a Germanic people. Being German was part of the national identity.

 

[Peregrine]

I'd certainly like to see;

Tamerlane/Timur-i-Leng; 15th century empire builder. Conquered an immense empire in central/western Asia.
Alp Arslan; Sultan of the Seljuk Turks, conquered an enormous empire.
William I the Conqueror, and not just as a GG.
Henry VIII or Richard I Lionheart.
Maria Theresa of Austria; A world-historical woman who actually deserves to be a civ leader.
Phillip II of Spain or Charles V HRE; These monarchs actually attempted to conquer/unite all of Europe.
Chandragupta Maurya; united most of India during the BC period.
Babur; established the Mogul empire in early modern India
More emphatically, WHERE are the Assyrians? Assurbanipal, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon. The Assyrians conquered an empire larger than anyone in the ancient period prior to the Persians. This has always been a glaring oversight, imo. (In CIV, the Assyrians are a barb city--hardly adequate)

 

[501st Legion]

Since most of this thread is talking about Hitler, and since in the manual there's going to be leaderhead DLC, why not have a DLC for Hitler? If you don't want Hitler, stay away from this DLC. If you want Hitler in civ, this is it. After all isn't DLC supposed to have the feeling of being optional? If this would happen I hope his voice is going to sound very authentic.

 

[Archwizard]

Leaders that I think should be in the game:

South Africa - Nelson Mandela
Sioux - Sitting Bull
Egypt - Anwar Sadat
Cuba - Fidel Castro
France - Louis XIV
England - Henry VIII, Churchill
USA - Lincoln, FDR
China - Mao
Argentina - Peron
Russia - Stalin, Lenin, Peter the Great
Persia - Xerxes I

I'm sure there are more, but it's late.

 

[Kamenev]

Argument collapses here. Austrians are a Germanic people. Being German was part of the national identity.

Yes, the problem with his argument that he is basing all of his evidence on feelings, and not historical evidence.

The fact that there are so many people who REFUSE to blame anyone is scary. On this thread we have seen people argue that the Austrians were victims of both Germany and their own Austrian/Hungarian Empire, and we have seen people assert that the Germans themselves were victims of their own state, thus compelling them to wage war and willingly participate in genocide. Do people realize the SS were mostly volunteer?

Everyone was a victim! No one was to blame! Events took a shape all their own. Primo Levi would turn in his grave right now. There seems to be a dangerous trend emerging in the West of moral neutrality on all things historical. This tends to push the idea that somehow the victims were to blame! If no one is to blame for the atrocities, then there must have been something the victims themselves did to warrent these horrible deeds (mind you without the acts of people!).

By saying no one is to blame, there is absolutely no reason to study the period at all. I cannot believe what I am reading on these forums.

And yes, Russians are guilty under Stalin. There is no double standard. One thing we do have in Soviet Russia that we do not have in Nazi Germany, however, is numerous opposition groups. NUMEROUS. All of which are well documented. How could people resist under Stalin, but not under Hitler, when almost all historians agree that Hitler's Germany was not anyone near the oppressive rule of Josef Stalin.

Blame the victims! I cannot believe this. Very sad indeed.

 

[Babri]

I don't know about Montezuma, but really who else would you pick to lead the Aztecs?

Ahuitzotl. He was one of the most successful leader of the Aztecs & perhaps the greatest military commander of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.

 

[Thedrin]

Where is the love for Henry VIII coming from? Elizabeth deserves to be in for laying the foundations on which England's later dominance was built, but that achievement is even more impressive because she had to clean up the financial mess left by Henry VIII.

 

[zuraffo]

Oh, Wu was a much greater figure than Jiang Qing ever was. For one Wu was a monarch in her own right, the rest of China's female regents (Hosts of queens, like the Empress Dowager and Jiang Qing) were merely aping her achievement.

Rulership wise, she is traditionally credited with two major achievement for china: She more or less invented and formalized the civil exam system, and she stabilized the agricultural system, two of the major founding stone of subsequent China's achievement.

Cao cao, while brilliant as a strategist, politician and poet(!), didn't successfully unified China, as such, he can hardly qualified as a candidate for the leader.

Wu Zetian: Personally I'd rather see Cao Cao ordering his great generals to conquer the world. In what aspect was Wu better than Cao Cao anyway? She became famous in China mostly because Jiang Qing, Mao's wife, tried to propagate (through TV programs) that her decisions including the Cultural Revolution might be oppressive but good for people, just like Wu's government was. As a result of the propaganda, Wu received too much credits than what she ever deserved.

Oda Nobunaga: I think he was a good choice. Unification of Japan was mostly done by him, and Tokugawa was just patient and lucky. Moreover, based on a poll in Japan on 2007, Oda was chosen to be the most popular historical figure (11.9% of votes).

 

[zuraffo]

You don't know who is Wu Zetian and you call yourself a chinese? You need to refresh your history. She is hard to miss even if you only have a smidgeon of history knowledge. She is the ONLY female monarch in the whole of China's history, and she is the mother of the Civil Examination System (科&#20030 which made China's bureaucracy the envy of the world in its time.

Is she a lot less significant? Well, sure, her achievements are not overt like the person you have mentioned, but considering they have directly contributed to the stability and vitality of China, I wouldn't call them "a lot less" significant.

As a Chinese person, I also feel that Wu Zetian is a lot less significant than Sun Yat-Sen, Qin Shi Huang, or Mao Ze Dong. Hell, I've never even heard of Wu Zetian before, and I'm sure lots of other people haven't either.

 

[zuraffo]

Sun Yat-Sen is universally considered the father of modern China, is the ONLY man BOTH the communists AND Taiwan love, overthrew the last dynasty, and is today considered one of China's greatest leaders.

Same reason as Cao cao, While Sun is a great man (in his time), but he didn't unite China, which effectively means he has never led china. He is a great scholar, intellectual and revolutionary, but as a politician he is less effective and certainly is not a ruler. As such, I don't deem him fit as a leader choice.

If Qing, Mao, Wu, Tang taizong, Ming taizhu belong to the first tier of chinese leaders, Sun belongs to the second tier, at best.

 

[Antarion]

I recommend doing so. Brilliant political strategist on the international stage.

absolutly but sadly not "kaiser whilhem 2nd"....

 

[Antarion]

@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.

thats crap and you should know what the holy roman empire meant...but thats the point of an austrian (like hitler was too) kinda amusing

there was no german country before 1871. it was always a problem of the former eastern frankish empire or later called holy roman empire to be seperated in small states like austria or bavaria and so on. of course they had a common history.

 

[brianshapiro]

Yes, the problem with his argument that he is basing all of his evidence on feelings, and not historical evidence.

The fact that there are so many people who REFUSE to blame anyone is scary. On this thread we have seen people argue that the Austrians were victims of both Germany and their own Austrian/Hungarian Empire, and we have seen people assert that the Germans themselves were victims of their own state, thus compelling them to wage war and willingly participate in genocide. Do people realize the SS were mostly volunteer?

Everyone was a victim! No one was to blame! Events took a shape all their own. Primo Levi would turn in his grave right now. There seems to be a dangerous trend emerging in the West of moral neutrality on all things historical. This tends to push the idea that somehow the victims were to blame! If no one is to blame for the atrocities, then there must have been something the victims themselves did to warrent these horrible deeds (mind you without the acts of people!).

By saying no one is to blame, there is absolutely no reason to study the period at all. I cannot believe what I am reading on these forums.

And yes, Russians are guilty under Stalin. There is no double standard. One thing we do have in Soviet Russia that we do not have in Nazi Germany, however, is numerous opposition groups. NUMEROUS. All of which are well documented. How could people resist under Stalin, but not under Hitler, when almost all historians agree that Hitler's Germany was not anyone near the oppressive rule of Josef Stalin.

Blame the victims! I cannot believe this. Very sad indeed.

My only point was that Germany as a whole was only as responsible for the 33% that voted for Nazis as it was for the 18% who voted for Communists. What I'm asking is what the events show? That the Germans had some innate yearning for fascism? Any more than they had an innate yearning for communism? The events only mean that Germany has a responsibility to look at what happened and build a civil order that will prevent it from happening again. Such as, for instance, having a Constitution that prevents the President from taking such extreme emergency powers as Hitler did with the Enabling Act. Or just having German citizens simply read history and learn to be more vigilant against all forms of extremism, both from the left and the right.

If you want to look at who was to blame for the 33% support for Nazis, it was many people, besides those who were in the ranks of the brownshirts and who eagerly supported Nazis, and wanted to kill people alongside Hitler, it also included his Communist opposition and the Weimar government that was in power. Germany was in a state of total mess, people felt that German culture had been destroyed, and there was growing support of extreme radical groups on the left like Communists. Nazis appealed to people who disliked the Weimar government, wanted the stability that existed under the monarchy, and were afraid of Communists taking power -- which the Nazis took advantage of with the Reichstag fire.

If we all want to know why the Holocaust happened, to make sure it doesn't happen again, the answer is a lot more complex than 'Germans liked Hitler'. And the solution is not as simple as jailing Holocaust deniers and banning depictions of Hitler in video games. If people are looking at the history of the 30s and all they're learning is 'Germans liked Hitler', another Holocaust will not be prevented. And the idea that there's no documented resistance is ridiculous.

I never said Austrians were victims of the Austro-Hungarian empire, I just said they didn't have long a history of being an independent nationality post-German unification, they were just independent since 1918, so there was no sense of Austrian nationalism. Many didn't empathize with the monarchy and wanted to be part of Germany. Basically I'm saying the same thing as Thedrin. In your rush to moralize, you want to make it sound like I'm saying something I'm not.