Germany

[fantasy_sports]

Bismarck refuses fair trades and demands tech. I think Frederick II should be the German leader like he was in Civ 2. Also, I am not happy to see discussions of Hitler being the German leader.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Hitler was one of the most talented statesmen ever until he started going mad and was the only man ever to have fully united Germany. He also came closer to uniting Europe than anyone before him or after. This makes him at least a possible candidate. If the holocaust is the reason then reflect that Mao and Stalin caused the deaths of more people yet they are considered good candidates for leadership of their civs. In saying this, Germany has been unusually blessed with a series of talented leaders and its difficult to dismiss either Freddy or Bismarck.

 

[Jimcat]

I'm sorry, but Hitler was NOT a talented statesman. In domestic affairs he was a demagogue, in foreign affairs he was a thug. He gained the support of the German people by appealing to the worst side of them, and was able to do so because the country was suffering from an economic depression and the humiliating surrender terms of Versailles. He stayed in power by employing state-sponsored terror against his own people. His only foreign policy "achievement" that didn't involve the use or threat of overwhelming force was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. That was just a device to buy time before his invasion of Russia, and since its ultimate outcome was the defeat of Germany by Russia, I'd consider that a failure as well.

Compare Hitler to Roosevelt, who rallied his demoralized country out of the Depression without resorting to murderous secret police, or Churchill, who forged alliances through diplomacy rather than forcing them at gunpoint, and you'll find that Hitler fails pretty much every "great statesman" test you care to name.

That being said, if you want to play Hitler as a civilization leader, hey, it's still a free country. I admit to getting a perverse thrill out of playing the Axis from time to time.

But as far as German leaders are concerned, I'm a big fan of Bismarck. Bismarck literally created the German Empire, drafting the constitution that united the German states. He fought wars in the manner of Clausewitz, using them as a continuation of diplomacy. Bismarck's wars were short, had clearly defined goals, and ended when those goals were achieved. And in the decades following the 1870 unification, Bismarck devoted his energies to preventing a war, assuring that Germany was never isolated on the European power stage. He also, despite his personal hunger for power, was responsive to the wishes of the German people, turning Germany into the most socially progressive nation in the world for that time.

The Germans should feel just as much pride over Bismarck as they feel shame over Hitler.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Jimcat, I totally agree with you about Bismarck but your arguments about Hitler are unfair.

Firstly, Stalin did feel threatened when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was made.
Secondly, the Anglo-German Naval agreement was a significant accomplishment achieved without the threat of overwhelming force.
Thirdly, statesmanship is not about conforming to precepts of a chivalric brotherhood. Its about succeeding in the cold world of realpolitik. Achievements accomplished with the threat of force are still achievements, and your qualification is an acknowlegdement that he had many of these. You might disaprove of Hitler's methods of controlling and motivating the German people, but they worked for him in his environment.
The contention that Hitler wasn't a talented statesman simply because he was a demagogue is totally baffling. Demagogy was what was required in the circumstances and Hitler was the best. The threat of force was a card Hitler had to play and he played it for 8 years with almost total success. If you don't like leaders who aren't like St Francis of Assisi then you'll have to rule out most of history's greatest leaders as well as rid civ3 of many of its rulers.
Fourthly, Hitler was probably at his peak the most popular leader of the 20th century and controlled most of the Germans with propaganda rather than terror.
Fifthly, you should know yourself that 30s USA was not 30s Germany. America did not suffer the same scale of catastrophe that Germany did. America had a stable constitution, a secure frontier and had not been defeated and humiliated in a major war.
Roosevelt didn't have Hitler's ambitions and didn't have to take the kind of risks Hitler had to make.

I agree that Hitler ultimately failed. He didn't conquer Russia which was his main long term aim whereas Bismarck and Freddy achieved most of what they set out without losing it. I would personally have Bismarck as the leader even though I feel he could have been a little bit less conservative in his aims. My main point was that Hitler is a legitimate contender.

 

[Minuteman]

My vote is for the Iron Chancellor, though Frederick would have been an intriguing choice.

 

[Jimcat]

I'm not saying that great statesmen have to be saints, otherwise I certainly wouldn't put Bismarck in that category! He manipulated innocent diplomatic communications to engineer a war with France, which ultimately resulted in a united Germany with himself in the driver's seat. Macchiavelli, or any modern "spin doctor," would have been proud.

But Bismarck played the game of diplomacy in a civilized manner. Even his enemies grudgingly admired him. Compare this to the world's view of Hitler. Up until 1941, most of the free world had considered Soviet Russia to be the greatest enemy and threat to world peace. Then Hitler attacked Russia, and suddenly Stalin was on "our" side. As Churchill remarked, "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would find something good to say about the Devil."

I would disagree with the contention that Hitler controlled the Germans with propaganda rather than terror. He used terror almost from day one, starting with Kristallnacht, the murder of the SA leaders, the Reichstag fire and the brutal roundup of the Communists. I presume I don't even have to remind you about the concentration camps. If everyone in Germany mouthed support for Nazi propaganda, it was because they knew the alternative was torture, imprisonment, or death.

I guess you've got your reasons for calling Hitler a "great statesman". But in my book, great statesmen don't come to power by inciting some of their citizens to condone terror against their countrymen, and they don't stay in power by imprisoning and killing anyone who questions their rule.

 

[simplybag]

His name is Friedrich and not Frederick or however you TRANSLATE his name. Names should NEVER be translated in my opinion, only exceptions made if the fonts are totally different or something. Same goes to townnames, which sadly are translated all the time

 

[Franz-Josef II]

Whats this poll supposed to be?!?
Frederick II as the Leader of Germany?? please don't make the same mistake again, as they did in Civ! Frederick was the leader of the Prussians, but not of the Germans!! Prussia actually was not of great importance untill the 19th century I would say. As Bismarck unified at least a part of the german spoken countries he would be more acceptable. But to my mind, being able to choose only between these two ones is really redicilous!

In my opinion the solution made in CivII, namely using the ability to choose between a male and a female leader, was much better! In the example of Germany they used the prussian leader Frederick II as the male one and the Kaiserin of the Ausrian-Hungarian Monarchy "Maria-Theresia" as the female one. Especially in the instance of germany this is very good, as Prussia and Austria were actually fighting a long period against each other for dominance over "Germany". Finally Prussia won (due to better rifles...the so-called Backloaders)...

And to all you Nazi guys out there: please stop cherrishing hitler!!(don't know if this word fits...) for god's sake. Of course it has been murdured in history a lot. And also so-called "great leaders" partly were mass murderers. Don't forget: the Winning party is writing history-books, not the loosing one...
In addition to this you can't say that Hitler was a great statesman!!! Germany was totally bankrott in 1938, before the "Anschluss" (annexion of Austria) happend. thats propably why annnexing other countries and stealing jewish property was that important... "Deleating" all the Unemployed people couldn't be accomplished without making debts....

 

[Franz-Josef II]

that's right simplybag! I think they also schould use the correct names of the cities!! what's cologne, munich and nuremberg supposed to be?!? it's called Köln, München und Nürnberg!! They same should be done to all the other cities, why not calling them in their original way?

 

[Salvor]

I can understand your frustration about city names. But I can also see both sides. For one, many of the intended customers don't have the requisite fonts to diplay umlaus and the like. The game was clearly designed with English-speakers in mind, and those are the names they went with. Fortunately, it's not difficult to go into the editor and change, add, or delete any city names for any civ, so if it makes you happier or more comfortable, by all means make whatever names you want.


I think if native language names had been kept, it would just lead to more controversy, since city names change over time and/or conquest. Is is Danzig or Gdansk? Byzantium, Constantinople, or Istanbul? Leningrad or St. Petersburg? Stalingrad or Volgagrad? I don't think many players would understand if the Americans' second city were named Niew Amsterdam instead of New York.

Over time, it's hard to even determine which civ should have some cities. Is Metz German or French? Is Alexandria Egyptian or Greek? Etc., etc.

Well I better stop before I unintentionally hurt somebody's feelings, which is not my intent, I'm mostly just babbling while waiting for the 5:00 whistle to end my workday.

 

[simplybag]

I agree on what you say about city names. The lies about their names are just too widely spread. It's not only in English but also in our language. We call Moskva Moskau and you call it Moscow. I feel very dumb if i call a city by our name but not by its real one. Nobody would know what Köln is i guess because no native English speaker has heard it before. But Frederick? I didn't think the lies about names went beyond geography and took over history too.

It's about the city names' nowadays and AFAIK it's called New York at the moment and not New Amsterdam. But we keep the name New York and don't name it "Neues York" just because that fits our needs.
Düsseldorf also has an Umlaut, yet you keep its original name by calling it just "Dusseldorf" which is a lot better than turning Nürnberg into Nuremberg or Köln into Cologne.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Bismarck is the greatest statesman Germany has ever had, and is the best choice they could have made.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by calgacus
Hitler was one of the most talented statesmen ever until he started going mad and was the only man ever to have fully united Germany.

I'm sick with this kind of disscutions ...
If Hitler is merituous with something is for what he DIND'T DO[/i] - e.g. not let Rohm S.A. to really have a power in Germany.

But anyway - Frederick II is the great german leader ( if not Otto the Great ).

Regards

 

[Arvedui]

While on the subject of which German leaders there should be, my idea is that the AI civs should change leaders according to the passing of time. This would be more realistic. Thus, you would have Bismarck in the XIX century and Hitler on the XX.

 

[connor]

How about Barbarossa? I think Bismark is a good choice.

The whole Hitler argument to me is similar to "one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter." If war is an extension of diplomacy, Hitler qualifies. Machiavelli also said that if a leader has a choice between being feared and loved, basically go with being feared. Hitler did it. Hitler is by no means a statesman in the same vain as Benjamin Franklin and others, but again to borrow from Machiavelli, the ends justifies the means if that is your desire. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. all followed the same play book and achieved much of what they desired. Hilter's failings were that he did not listen to his generals, was a poor military strategist, tactician, and logistician. For which I am very grateful, or we may very well be living in a much different world.

BTW, the statesman idea from colonization. Yes, wonders are similar, but to have great statesmen in building your civ to help unife it, reduce corruption, WLTKDs, etc. would be fun.

The Prince

http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/projects/digitexts/machiavelli/the_prince/title.html

It's good to be the king! - Mel Brooks

 

[Panda]

Both would be excellent choices, but Bismarck gets my vote

BTW, it's 'von' Bismarck, not 'van' Bismarck

 

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

Hitler was EXTREMELY charismatic, but a HORRIBLE, f**king leader. He started and lost WWII for Germany. And yes he was a thug. He preaches about the honor and the straightforwardness of the Germans, but calls the Jews conniving and backstabbing. Everything he was! There is nothing good about attacking a country out of the blue. You must first declare war which is only honorable and at least somewhat respectable. Not to much he destroyed the Weimar Reoublic and stripped all power from Hindenburg. Very deceitful! Surely the actions of an UNTERMENSCH! The only truly German spirited leader in WWII was Rommel (I don't think I need to explain this!).

 

[Black Waltz]

Well even though I don't support the cause that Hitler was a good statesmen, I still feel he would be good to play in Civ III, which is afterall just a game.

And Bismarck was not that much a better person. His tactics of Realpolitik was quite clever, but he did just throw away human life, and was one of the major causes of WWI, and thus II. If such a humiliating peace was no impossed on France (Alsace and Lorraine taken from them, march through Paris) then there would not have been such a grudge held against them on the run-up to 1918. France felt really bitter about the loss of those terrirotries and it was part of the reason that the 2 alliances - Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance - was formed.

Of course, after WWI, Alsace and Lorraine were returned aswell as many other terrorories being taken away, but a major cause can be traced back to Bismark and his trecherous tactics. And can he really be called a good leader? When he did not get his own way he begged, pleaded, stamped his feet and even threatened resignation and suicide to get his way!

But overall, Bismarck is a more Politically Correct Leader to have, but what could be more chilling then Receiving an Emisarry from the German Civilisation right next to you:

"I am Adolf Hitler, leader of the Great German Empire. Kind and peacefull ruler of the German People...."

*shivers*

 

[siredgar]

Hitler and Stalin are not in the game because they're unpopular with their own people. Mao is still popular among many Chinese and the form of government he established is still in power. Nazism and Communism are now gone in Germany and Russia. China is still Communist and reveres Mao. Also, he "liberated" the country and helped the peasants. Hitler mostly brought his country to ruin through WWII and helped divide it into two. Stalin "purged" too many people. They were both much more ruthless than Mao.

 

[Blackdragon]

germans never needed powerfull and strong leaders
its about the same with the british
one good ability of the germans and british and maybe some other civs is to rule a country behind the courtain.
hitler did not gained for power alone.
he was very supported by the german industry like Quandt and the Krupp-nazis. hitler didnt liked the jews but only the support of the industry did make the nazis insane about the jews.
the weimarer-republic was ****. indeed there was a need to make some kind of war to make germany independent again after the loss of ww1. if hitler hadnt done this job the german industry would have set another man into power to fight this war.
no mather who may led germany in the 40s the all would have fought some kind of war to establish german power and independence again.
the best german leaders may be Adenauer or Friedrich1