How come Hitler isnt in civ 4?

[Bigfoot3814]

To both the rangers (are you the same person?), as (one of) you pointed out, CIV is not a history-teaching tool. It's meant to be a game, not a simulator. There are more reasons Hitler shouldn't be in the game than there are reasons he should.

In my oppinion, that is, in my oppinion, the end.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Sorry, but calling anybody who wants Hitler in Civ4 (without even hearing their reasons why) as "Pro-Hitler" and "Anti-Semetic" is about the most ignorant and uneducated thing I have ever heard on these forums...

Say what you will about the need or lack there-of for Hitler in the game, but saying anyone who is for his inclusion is "pro-Hitler" and essentially a Nazi is frankly insulting, ignorant, childish and down-right in-your-face rude.

 

[ranger999]

Sorry, but calling anybody who wants Hitler in Civ4 (without even hearing their reasons why) as "Pro-Hitler" and "Anti-Semetic" is about the most ignorant and uneducated thing I have ever heard on these forums...

Say what you will about the need or lack there-of for Hitler in the game, but saying anyone who is for his inclusion is "pro-Hitler" and essentially a Nazi is frankly insulting, ignorant, childish and down-right in-your-face rude.

I don't know about the first poster (ranger101 is not a relative of mine ), but I didn't mean to imply that folks should get an automatic "Nazi" label for wanting Hitler in the game. My own post pointed out that there are *some* folks, not many, if you read closely in their posts, who have reasons for wanting Hitler in the game that are more related to favorable feelings toward Hitler, than any "objectivity." Hence my reference to the long-ago poster who touted the "cultural accomplishments" of Hitler. That was NOT meant a reference to you.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

I can name one cultural contribution of Hitler. Without him there would be no A&E channel.

 

[Lexicus]

Why would they put in a leader whose legacy for his country was near-total destruction and unconditional surrender?

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Why would they put in a leader whose legacy for his country was near-total destruction and unconditional surrender?

You seem to forget that his legacy also includes having conquered most of mainland Europe. I still don't think he should be included in the game, though.

 

[Lexicus]

You seem to forget that his legacy also includes having conquered most of mainland Europe. I still don't think he should be included in the game, though.

That is not one of his legacies. He managed to do it, but in the end it didn't matter because he lost. Conquering Europe is not one of his legacies.

They should not include a leader who was observably bad for his country.

 

[Rub'Rum]

The thing that never ceases to amaze me is that even though all these threads start with a few people saying things like "Noooo not this subject again, haha, lololz, check all these threads where it's been debated already! Now can we change topic?", they still end up in an actual debate on the subject.

Just... no. Please, no.

 

[Wolfshanze]

They should not include a leader who was observably bad for his country.

Why would they put in a leader whose legacy for his country was near-total destruction and unconditional surrender?

You're right... they should remove Napoleon, Hannibal and Montezuma immediately from the game! They have no right to be in this game!

 

[oranges]

I vote for Hitler threads as the most tiresome in the forum.

 

[AfterShafter]

You're right... they should remove Napoleon, Hannibal and Montezuma immediately from the game! They have no right to be in this game!

Bingo. The funny thing is, sometimes the biggest losers have tremendous impact on history. Hannibal is a key example of this - he's famous... For losing! And his name is known over two thousand years after his death.

What I resent is something that has popped up in here... The moment you try and simply say "Hey look, the guy was evil, but he was influential - can't we at least treat him like that rather than washing him whatever color it is popular to do so these days?"... Well, the moment you take that position, you get these quiet rumblings of "closet anti-semite" and whatnot. Get real! Some of us just find the utter ignorance that is spewed about the man.

The man was evil. Some people get so caught up in the "Hitler was a monster!" mutual back-patting sessions that they completely ignore the impact he's had on the past century - which was tremendous. It annoys other people - not out of love for Hitler or his regime. That's a fact.

 

[Ace of Gold]

You're right... they should remove Napoleon, Hannibal and Montezuma immediately from the game! They have no right to be in this game!

Umm, I think you need to read a history book. Napoleon made it so Schools were for everyone, not just the privileged. He also established the Napeonic code, whichws used in Spain, Italy, Austria and Germany after the war. Also hewas a military Genius. When he lost the war, he knew it was over and surrendured before the enemys could do any damage to France.


Hitler was stubburn and always thought he was winning the war. And because the Nazis did not surrendur before the Soviets and Allies came, Germany became Ruins. Nothing was there, it was a bunch of Rubble. And that resulted in Germany not becoming a country until 1991! Use commen sense. The leaders who are in Civ are in there because they helped the Country. Hitler brought disgrace to Germany and even though he did help Germany for a short while during the war, It all ended in distruction.

 

[grommit5]

I can name one cultural contribution of Hitler. Without him there would be no A&E channel.

add history channel to that

 

[Wolfshanze]

Umm, I think you need to read a history book.

Ummm, I think you need to read a history book... I suppose you couldn't pick one up without seeing Hitler mentioned as a keystone in 20th century history... as for Napoleon, he caused the death of untold hundreds of thousands of people in Europe, brought France to ruin, and was himself one of the biggest losers in history...

If by being a big fat loser, you get to be in Civ4, I see no reason why Hitler wouldn't be in the same category... like Napoleon, he caused the deaths of countless people and brought ruin to his country.

You don't have to win wars, build autobahns or open schools to be important to history... you just have to impact history significantly to be remembered and important... certainly Hitler did just that... if he didn't why would this same exact thread come-up over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again?!?!?

I'll bet the History Channel does more on Hitler then Napoleon in any given week by a landslide too.

Finally "Churchill 25", you need to actually READ what I'm replying to... the quote: "Why would they put in a leader whose legacy for his country was near-total destruction and unconditional surrender?" is what I responded to... did Napoleon, Montezuma and Hannibal not cause near-total destruction and unconditional surrender? Check a history book or two (just remember to pretend the Hitler section isn't in there... he's not important, remember?).

 

[Ace of Gold]

Ummm, I think you need to read a history book... I suppose you couldn't pick one up without seeing Hitler mentioned as a keystone in 20th century history... as for Napoleon, he caused the death of untold hundreds of thousands of people in Europe, brought France to ruin, and was himself one of the biggest losers in history...

If by being a big fat loser, you get to be in Civ4, I see no reason why Hitler wouldn't be in the same category... like Napoleon, he caused the deaths of countless people and brought ruin to his country.

You don't have to win wars, build autobahns or open schools to be important to history... you just have to impact history significantly to be remembered and important... certainly Hitler did just that... if he didn't why would this same exact thread come-up over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again?!?!?

I'll bet the History Channel does more on Hitler then Napoleon in any given week by a landslide too.

Finally "Churchill 25", you need to actually READ what I'm replying to... the quote: "Why would they put in a leader whose legacy for his country was near-total destruction and unconditional surrender?" is what I responded to... did Napoleon, Montezuma and Hannibal not cause near-total destruction and unconditional surrender? Check a history book or two (just remember to pretend the Hitler section isn't in there... he's not important, remember?).

I Gave a reason why Hitler is not in civ 4. Because he brought Germany to ruin, when it was occupied. Now is it true that you are saying Napoleon brought destruction to France. Im pretty sure France was not totally destroyed like Germany was at the end of the war. And like I said earlier, Germany just became a country in 1991. France was not even occupied after the napoleanic wars. So Mr. "History expert" care to give any prof to your claims that Napoleon brought destruction to France.

 

[Iranon]

There is only one reason why I'd like to see Hitler in a game like civ (which I consider inappropriate; I already gave my reasons): to see German censorship choke on that.

Computer games are the most tightly controlled medium here because they are defined as toys rather than art. If a a publication in another medium is held to have educational/artistic merit, the ban on anything Nazi-related isn't enforced; this doesn't happen to games never mind how educational/well researched they are (and I do believe the civ series has plenty of educational merit... even though some civilopedia entries are :facepalm:-worthy).

Knowing German media this is likely to be spun as definite proof that all computer games are evil, but it's almost worth trying...

 

[Methos]

Moderator Action: Thread closed. Hitler threads are not allowed at CFC.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889