Hitler??

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Doc, I disagree with your conclusions. Bismarck was anti socialistic. But if he was still alive the people would now elect him only because he is against the SPD . Okay, jokes aside, Bismarck introduced the most liberal and also democratic constitution of that times (outside the US, although there minorities like the Indians could not elect!), a social security system, prevented ww1 several times and finally united Germany.
Also in that days the SPD was much closer to a KPD than today, perhaps in some way compareable with the PDS. Nevertheless he saw the poverty in the worker quaters and so he did the first steps to stop that.
But as anti Prussian you will have your opinion and as Prussian I have mine.

Adler

The interesting thing is that I very well agree with all you're saying. Bismarck was brilliant.
But, you better not claim he introduced the social systems because he was such a nice person, and not to keep the masses calm and reduce the influence of the Socialists...or that he united Germany for the sake of the nation, and not to expand Prussia...or he avoided longer wars because he was so peaceful, and not because he only waged war when he was sure to win (France and Austria)...and Jacoby was no Socialist anyway.

 

[ThERat]

finally I get to know all the civfanatics from Germany and there is even someone from Erlangen, my beloved hometown..

but guys, the discussion is futile. There won't be Hitler. In fact I never gave much about the leaders anyway. Does it matter that much?

It's bad enough to face those stupid Hitler comment while living overseas, so please don't use him in Civ. Germany has hopefully more to offer than that maniac.

 

[Johivin]

For a game that is going to allow you to use religion to unite people and essentially allows for 'holy wars', what is the problem with controversy?

You don't even need a figurehead to represent Hitler. If you personally want to kill off a religion, you can! This thread is useless and only angers up the blood.

Johivin Ryson

Those who watch rarely speak up.
Those who speak rarely hear all.
But those who listen see all there is.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

I am sure Hitler will be making an appearance in the game one way or another. If not as a standard leader, than as a mod. We've had a Fascist patch for Civ2 (with much debate and screaming), a Fascist patch for Civ3 (more screaming), people have made leaderheads and many Nazi units, stuff like this will appear in civ4 as well.

 

[Oivind]

I would love to kick Hitlers aryan but all the way back to Berlin!

 

[ironduck]

Hitler's Germany: Militaristic, Xenophobic, Expansionist, Anti-Democratic, Anti-Socialist, Economic Growth, scientific....

The idea of economic growth in Nazi Germany is a common misconception. When Hitler took power Germany was on its way to recovery, that is the closest to economic growth he got. From there on the Nazis borrowed their country to the hilt until they could borrow no more. Then they plundered half of Europe and robbed the jews while they slaughtered them. Robbing and killing your own population has nothing to do with economic growth.

If the nazis had not initiated WW2 Germany would have quickly gone bankrupt, their credit lines were stretched to the max. Going to war to rob other countrie's valuables was very much part of the 'economic strategy' to avoid bankruptcy.

The illusion of economic growth during 1933-1939 was simply a matter of putting the country into a bottomless pit of debt and spending the money on employing the citizens into infrastructure and millitaristic spending (primarily). There was nothing sound about the economic model and it had nothing to do with actual economic growth.

As for 'scientific' that too is highly questionable - it was only very specific science the nazis were interested in. Fundamental research was not encouraged - only that useful for war purposes was. The amazing contributions German scientists did to quantum physics during the pre-nazi era grinded to a halt as they came into power. Of course Einstein and others fled, and the ones that stayed could only get minimal funding through arguing their research as useful to the nazi party (true or not).

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

In addition to that, even researchers in weaponry technics had a hard stand in the 3rd Reich if they weren't close to the Nazi ideology. That doesn't mean a von Braun, Porsche or Messerschmidt had to be dedicated antisemites - but some sympathy for the Great German Reich was expected.
For example, Hugo Junkers was put under house arrest as soon as Hitler gained power (and stayed there until he died in 1935), and Ernst Heinkel was forced to retire from his own company and hand it ovre to the state. He barely was allowed to continue his work on jet propulsion.
So, the Nazi system wasn't even supporting applied war technology science in general, only pro-Nazi researchers.

 

[ironduck]

Of course, as the ultimate totalitarian state no dissent whatsoever was accepted.

There's an interesting parallel to the Soviet Union under Stalin where science was as repressed as all other free thought. Post Stalin things got a lot better in the scientific community as well as politically (in fact, very impressively so considering how bad things continued to be politically and economically). It should be noted that a totalitarian state and free scientific research are not compatible - we see that in the most totalitarian countries in the world today as well.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

French: De Gaulle. Please

De Gaulle? Napolean had much more impact on the world. Not to mention Charles Magne.
And Joan D'Arc is much prettier than the Gaulle.

As for Hitler, I would like him to be on because he had impact in modern history. There were a lot of mean people in history, he is just a more recent one (but no more recent than Stalin). But if Hitler is not, I don't care much and understand Fireaxis. I'll still want to play WWII scenarios!

 

[ironduck]

Btw, I think neither Hitler, nor Stalin, nor Mao have any place as regular leaders in Civ. None of them were 'great' in any sense of the word. They caused an awful lot of death, pain, setbacks, and destruction, but no growth. Each of these countries have a slew of historical leaders that make a lot more sense (for expanding, uniting, or improving their countries).

Obviously in specific scenarios like WW2 the historical leaders should remain true - otherwise it makes little sense to have leaderheads.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Stalin did not expand his country? Mao did nothing to unite China? Really?

If we were to exclude all leaders who caused death, pain and destruction there wouldnt be many left, military conquest seem to be a major part of what makes a leader "great" for some reason.

Hitler should not represent Germany because this would be highly offensive to the Germans. I dont see why people need reasons beyond that.

 

[ironduck]

I don't think it's unreasonable to consider Mao as replacing one totalitarian dictatorship (Chiang Kai-shek's 1928 Republic of China) with his own.. Mao emerged as the final leader after more than 20 years of civil war, so the uniting he did was more a matter of crushing resistance.. of course that can be said for a lot of other cases in history, but I have a hard time seeing Mao as a great uniter. Taiwan stayed un-united of course.

I guess if Mao was a uniter, Hitler was much more so with the relatively peaceful (bare for individual resisters) Anschluss of Austria and Suedetenland grab. Haven't heard of many people other than nazis calling Hitler a uniter though

Maybe my idea of 'uniting' is just different from murdering all who oppose the unification.

As for Stalin's expansion of the communist block with the occupation of eastern Europe, well.. it remained an occupation throughout with several large scale uprisings, and as soon as the Soviets stopped their millitary occupation of these countries they all broke loose in a flash. The occupied populations never felt as part of the Soviets, and technically it was not an expansion of the USSR since they were called 'independent, allied states'.

So sure, Mao could be called a 'uniter' and Stalin an 'expander', but I think reality gives a rather different picture. Further, both these leaders moved their countries into reverse gears politically, technologically, economically, culturally, you name it, while the rest of the world moved forward. If that is not incompetence I don't know what is.

I very much agree that more peaceful leaders who facilitated growth and development for their nations should be much more widespread in Civ.

 

[qazxc]

Them that want Hitler certainly deserve him...

q

 

[Commander Bello]

Btw, I think neither Hitler, nor Stalin, nor Mao have any place as regular leaders in Civ. None of them were 'great' in any sense of the word. [...]

This is the very point!

All three were just crazy mass-murderes in an - up to then - unseen scale.
For me it is just a crudity to have anyone of them in the game.

In the history of either the Russians, the Chinese or the Germans there should be more historical persons be available who would deserve the attribute "great".

 

[ironduck]

Exactly! Hitler without the world war was just a mass murderer who bankrupted his country. Stalin was a mass murderer who starved his people to death. Mao was a mass murderer who also starved his people to death. Everyone lived in fear, no one but top party bosses prospered. How that can be considered civilization building or nation building is beyond me. Germany met its all time low under Hitler. Russia and its vassal states met a similar low under Stalin. And look at China's growth after Mao's death, it speaks for itself.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Despite dissagreeing with you over whether Stalin and Mao expanded/united their countries I agree with you. Im sure better leaders could be found for both Russia and China.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

Here's a crazy idea, include the leaders that those nations themselves consider to be great.

Show me one German who considers Hitler a "great leader" and I'll show you one very disturbed individual. The same goes with anyone who would consider Hitler a "great leader." He wasn't.

Yes, he's historic and would naturally be the leader of Germany in any Second World War scenario, but he is far, far, from being a great world leader. His 13 year reign brought nothing but disaster for Germans and for everyone else, nothing good came out of it.

Sure, there are plenty of other unsavory leaders but that can partially be excused because they lived in less civilised times - you're not going to find a great Roman without much blood on his hands.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Exactly! Hitler without the world war was just a mass murderer who bankrupted his country. Stalin was a mass murderer who starved his people to death. Mao was a mass murderer who also starved his people to death. Everyone lived in fear, no one but top party bosses prospered. How that can be considered civilization building or nation building is beyond me. Germany met its all time low under Hitler. Russia and its vassal states met a similar low under Stalin. And look at China's growth after Mao's death, it speaks for itself.

Actually, Hitler's Germany was doing quite well until he made the twin errors of failing to invade England and then foolishly invading the Soviet Union. While he continously planned for a wartime economy once he became Chancellor to the detriment of other considerations, had he achieved his objectives it is probable that a victorious Germany would have become an economic powerhouse. Note that I am merely considering economics here and not his decidedly unpleasant ideological views.

Under Stalin, the Soviet Union reached its zenith. Enough said.

 

[ironduck]

Actually, Hitler's Germany was doing quite well until he made the twin errors of failing to invade England and then foolishly invading the Soviet Union. While he continously planned for a wartime economy once he became Chancellor to the detriment of other considerations, had he achieved his objectives it is probable that a victorious Germany would have become an economic powerhouse. Note that I am merely considering economics here and not his decidedly unpleasant ideological views.

Well, if Germany should have avoided a bankruptcy it would mean that it should have had millitary success, so if it had avoided being squeezed by the two allied sides it would still need to extract a ton of resources from its conquered states and then somehow change its entire economic program into a peace time mode. But the nazi party was an agression party at its core, it makes no sense to think of it as changing into a viable socio-economic structure. The robbing of its own population was not only a way to extract funds but also to give a sense of 'direction'. 'We will fight these and these enemies until we have what is rightfully ours'. But that is a typical demagogue program, there is nothing to do if the theoretical goal is ever met.

Also, keep in mind that the Germans were destroying the structure of their own country by murdering and driving out the intellectuals, the scientists, the critics. It was not a modern German that remained, it was deeply backwards in all but a millitary and infrastructure sense.

Under Stalin, the Soviet Union reached its zenith. Enough said.

Don't you mean its nadir?

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

No, I mean its zenith. At the close of WWII the Soviets had the most territory and the most powerful army in the world. These are the standards by which civ3 civilizations are usually judged, if you want to win by conquest, that is. Here again I am looking at the end result, and ignoring the suffering the people had to go through. Interestingly, Stalin seems to be coming back into favor in Russia - apparently many Russians are sick of being at the bottom of the heap since the Soviet breakup and long for a return to superpower status.

Ignoring all the PC screaming, it's interesting to contemplate - which came first, the chicken or the egg? Was Hitler's rise inevitable due to the factors imposed upon Germany by the West, i.e the Treaty of Versailles and the military restrictions? Or was his ultimate favor by the Germans brought about by Stalin's excesses in the East during the '20s and '30s? Was Stalin gifted with the foresight that invasion by the West was inevitable, thus his industrialization and collectivism atrocities, or did these programs in themselves spark the reactionism in Germany which ultimately brought about WWII?