Hitler, hirohito, Mussolini, and Hideki Tojo

[blitzkrieg1980]

TOO MANY THREADS ON THIS SUBJECT

As has already been stated in prior threads:
Having Hitler in the game eliminates its ability to be sold in Germany (or so has been posted in previous threads). Hitler is still in the living memory of hundreds of thousands of people including thousands (actual stats anyone?) of holocaust survivors, making it more offensive. This is true of Stalin as well, however, Stalin's slaughtering wasn't based on religion / culture, rather he just caused mass starvation in the name of industrialization. Not really targeted. Also, the belief that retreating soldiers in the Soviet Army were traitors to to motherland was cause for immediate execution. Not that I agree with this, but it at least has some strategic purpose of defense rather than singling out a culture to genocide for the purposes of national unity to further militant imperialism. Let's not forget that the fear driven into many soldier of the Soviet force aided in the pushing of Nazi divisions back into Berlin and their eventual defeat.

Seriously, enough of the Hitler discussion.

Mussolini (as previously posted) doesn't really have a civ to go with. There is no "Italian" empire in the game. Rome hardly seems to be an equivilent.

I really couldn't tell you why Tojo isn't in the game. Does anyone know if Tojo had any kind of genocide or war crimes going on?

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Russia fought hard, but they owe their very existence to the US. Too many people don't realize that these days.

This is an exaggerated opinion as lend lease barely compares given the advantage Russia got from it in comparison to the U.K. Besides, Russias massive army size, harsh weather conditions during the winter which many Russians were already used to, mass industrialization in the earlier Stalin years, and policies of fear from immediate execution if troops retreated without orders far outweigh the $11 mil Russia acquired from the U.S. mainly army size and industrialization. The fact that the U.S.S.R.'s land mass would hardly be managable to occupy in the face of an insurgency also made a German total victory impractical.

If anything, the U.S. should thank Japan for giving it a reason to enter the war at all considering public sentiment was much more towards "normalcy" and isolationism before direct attack occured at Pearl Harbor. World War II and the subsequent Cold War was the cause of many technological leaps in America as well as the cementing of America as a "World Power". So thanks Tojo. Thanks for missing all our Carriers too.

 

[Withouthatred]

I really couldn't tell you why Tojo isn't in the game. Does anyone know if Tojo had any kind of genocide or war crimes going on?

No, he was the highest ranking general in japan during world war 2, and oddly enough was one of the few that was actually opposed to attacking the U.S., Regardless his military tactics were brilliant.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

TOO MANY THREADS ON THIS SUBJECT

QFT!

I really couldn't tell you why Tojo isn't in the game. Does anyone know if Tojo had any kind of genocide or war crimes going on?

Yes -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hideki_Tojo

Hideki Tojo (December 30, 1884 – December 23, 1948)

"He was sentenced to death for war crimes after the war and executed by hanging after a vote by judges of the International Military Tribunal of the Far East."

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^^Thanks man. Although I'm gonna seek a reference to go with Wiki. I used to go on wiki alone, but have been warned since then by a number of trusted university professors that much info is biased and just plain wrong. But I still get basic historical info from it.

 

[LoH_Numa]

Not really...they're rather offensive leaders.

 

[Norton II]

Bismarck was a loser too, so that argument doesnt make sense.

I'm fairly certain that Germany never lost a war while Bismarck was chancellor. Come to think of it, "Germany" never fought a war in Bismarck's time--his wars were fought to unify the German states under Prussia.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

^^^Thanks man. Although I'm gonna seek a reference to go with Wiki. I used to go on wiki alone, but have been warned since then by a number of trusted university professors that much info is biased and just plain wrong. But I still get basic historical info from it.

Confirming facts from several sources is always good idea -- i mostly link to wiki for info that i already know from other sources (books etc.) as wiki is usually quickest place to find/link same info online. For new info it is always good idea to check article sources or confirm it elsewhere.

Second google result search for "Hideki Tojo" is from Spartacus Education (i have spend few working hours reading that site..).

 

[NYHunter]

Hitler was not a good leader. Rather he was incompetent and destroyed his country.

He brought military dominance in Europe for just a few years and never actually accomplished much with that dominance.

He could have focused on Britain but instead he followed the stupid path of by invading the Soviet Union, allowing not only Britain to regain some strength by attacking a force that the Poles, Napoleon and the Kaiser from WWI can tell you is to be reckon with.

His actions resulted in Germany becoming divided, one half being a third world puppet state for the USSR.

And over all he started a major war and lost it, big time.

Besides, imagine seeing a cheery Hiter...

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

a cheery Hitler, that may be reason enough to get a Hitler mod!

Thanks again to Julian Delphiki for the links!

 

[tonberry]

My take on why Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito are not leaders but Stalin and Mao are:


Leaders in Civ, I think, are chosen because they represent an important and great part of the history of their civilization.

Stalin, like it or not, was victorious during WW2 and represent the Soviet Union, a period that is a golden age for Russia. The Soviet Union empire did collapse eventually, like the Persian, but for many years, they were a force to be reckon with.

Mao, for better or worse, unifie a country and lead it to an age of independance. Before Mao, China was a playground for others great power. No more after Mao. That said, I think they could have made a better choice for China but Mao is one of the few modern leader that deserve a spot.

By contrast, Hitler, even if a game with him could be sold in Germany, should not be in this game. He start a war, lose it and wreck his country. He clearly not deserve to be occupied the same spot as, say, Bismark, who create the modern state of Germany.

Same can be said about the others Axis leaders. Some people want them in the game because they are famous and recent leaders that many people know. But wanting them is like wanting Darius III, the persian king who lost to Alexander.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I object to Hirohito being in this list of "bad" leaders...while it is true he was the Emperor, he was little more than a pawn in a grand game when it came to Japanese politics. There's a reason that he was allowed to remain Emperor: the Americans knew that he wasn't really in control of Japan.

 

[Holycannoli]

By contrast, Hitler, even if a game with him could be sold in Germany, should not be in this game. He start a war, lose it and wreck his country. He clearly not deserve to be occupied the same spot as, say, Bismark, who create the modern state of Germany.

My opinion is that while Hitler was definitely not a great leader, he was arguably the most important figure of the 20th century (for evil reasons mind you). And the very fact that other WWII leaders like Stalin are included makes it even more obvious that Hitler's missing. It's like a big void. We have a lot of WWII leaders but we are missing arguably the most important one of them all, the man without whom there would never have been a WWII at all.

I do want to stress that when I say "important" I do not say it in admiration of the guy.

 

[Illini Rule]

Hitler did not destroy Germany. It was in ruins when he came, and was in ruins when he left. While he was in rain he gave them a few year of dominace on the world playing field. Germany was more powerful during his rule than any other time. They he messed up and lost but that dose not take away from his acomplishments. He was one of the greatest speakers the world has ever seen.

He was a very bad person but so are most leaders. There is no such thing as a nice politician. Most politicians are corrupt. Carter was one of the best people to ever hold United States presidency. He was a bad president.

He also alienated lots of people and they will not like to play as him, But they mite enjoy nuking his civilization.

 

[Quintillus]

I'd just like to see if they're in the World War II scenarios. It's a fair enough call to not have them in regular game (still not sure it's the best call), but not having them in the WWII scenarios would be seriously inaccurate.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Hideki Tojo, although not a leader, was an incredible general, one of the better ones during ww2, I'd like to see him as a great general at the very least.

What? Tojo wasn't even a combat officer. He was in the Kempeitai.

I object to Hirohito being in this list of "bad" leaders...while it is true he was the Emperor, he was little more than a pawn in a grand game when it came to Japanese politics. There's a reason that he was allowed to remain Emperor: the Americans knew that he wasn't really in control of Japan.

Yes and No. Was he running the country? Absolutely not. Was he a war criminal though? Certainly. He personally signed off on orders to use chemical warfare and on Unit 731. These were completely unforgivable crimes. Hirohito should have taken the place of some of the Generals at the Tokyo trials. Unfortanately that was run alot more poorly then Nuremberg, guilt was basicly determined by wearing kakhi.
We let Hirohito remain on the throne because it would have caused vast social upheaval to remove him, not because he was innocent.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

I'm sure the consensus would be that leaders that:
a) did the country a lot of good
b) that country's people supported them
would be included.

Difference between Stalin and Mao, and the leaders in the name of the thread? Nobody likes them today. Like, nobody. Especially Hitler: Germans hate him, non-Germans hate him. I think these two sets cover the universe of possibilities.

Bismarck: a lack of historical knowledge when I see that statement. Sure, Germany united, industrialized, and did it without ever fighting a large war against a foreign power. Why is that a minus? Bismarck never "won a war" because he never needed to: he was the most gifted diplomat in the past 500 years of world history!

And actually, he did fight a battle, against the Austrians, and he won. Bismarck could represent not just Germany, but possibly Europe.

 

[Holycannoli]

I'm sure the consensus would be that leaders that:
a) did the country a lot of good
b) that country's people supported them
would be included.

Difference between Stalin and Mao, and the leaders in the name of the thread? Nobody likes them today. Like, nobody. Especially Hitler: Germans hate him, non-Germans hate him. I think these two sets cover the universe of possibilities.

You have a very good point there. But that means there's people out there that actually like Stalin? (well there's actually people out there that like Hitler too but we won't get into that).

Stalin to me and everyone else I know is almost as synonymous with evil as Hitler is.

 

[thadian]

i would like to see a WWII scenario perhaps with hitler, as he is the most famous modern german leader. When i look at a great leader, i look not at what he did so much as what he left behind. Hitlers life other than genocide, looking at the 50 years after his death... Aside from bald white people who think theyre "Aryans" he didnt contribute much.

His era in germany did not create anything for germny to be proud of. lets look at history in 24 years and assume both the earth is still stable, and Civ Games are still popping out.

I would not want Saddam Hussein to be leader of the Arabs, or Yassar Arafat. Despite their accomplishments, their deeds were questionable, and their "greatness" would be unworthy.

a War on Terror mod featuring a GW Bush celebrity appearance might be OK, but i woulndt want Bush, Clinton, Reagan or any other recent president to be the main leader. Likewise, Tony Blair wouldnt be a good britan canidate.

Were talking about LEGENDS, who shaped our world, help build the foundation of societies future, and bring humankind to the next level. If Hitler did any of these, he helped humanity unite in the 40's** - and despite a small cult following of "white arayans" those who look to his greatness are small in number. Thus, it is important to instead use people who can be looked at as a great person who you can be proud of, if not at minimum, happy to see a good choice represent you.

** Unite against him that is (for any who might misinterpret that one)

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Stalin to me and everyone else I know is almost as synonymous with evil as Hitler is.

To judge a politician in any age against what we "normal" folks would consider moral is not feasable. By any normal human's standards much of what Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, Hirohito, Genghis Kahn, FDR, Napoleon, and the Pope during Inquisition (and that's a religious as well as political leader, mind you) was heinous. The fact is that much of the death due to Stalin resulted in the mass industrialization of an agricultural nation which, in turn, only lead to the ability for Russia to overcome the German offensive and push all the way to Berlin. Although causing the death of hundreds of thousands is dispicable, it is not much unlike what happens still in many LDNs (lesser developed nations) today and what occured in most empires throughout history.

What sets Hitler apart from the likes of Stalin and Mao is the pure fact that German policy under Hitlercalled for conquering of all of Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East in order to eradicate and/or control all non-Aryan peoples . Stalin had no such desires to conquer the world to eliminate non-Russians. Both were responsible for the death of millions, but as a learned group of people, we need to recognize the differences in purpose, not just in deeds.