Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by mattavich, Dec 14, 2010.
I agree with this.
If we look at Monty they did kill slaves (sacrifices) and even ask as tribute warriors for sacrificing, but it was not only Montezuma, and there was not only 2 but more (i recently read a National Geografic article about this), it was everybody around them that acted that way. But humanity evolved, and many more atrocities where commited. But none like WW2 - Nazi Adolf Hitler.
We have to put the events under a time / cultural context, we cannot compare people mentality in europe in 1500 to the current days.
Not sure if I agree with that. In WWII, Hitler's actions were within International Law, but he still should have been brought to justice for it.
Hitler may have been the worst, but there were people close. I'm not ready to put Monty on that list, but remember, there were less people for Monty to kill...
Stalin and Mao made Hitler look like a girl scout.
But we can blame Americans for slavery, because it's convenient to blame thousands of years of human brutality on Americans.
It's probably worth pointing out, with respect to several comments of Fascism being present in the Civ series, that Hitler didn't create Fascism, Mussolini did (or at least he coined the term)and it predates Hitler. It was an offshoot of Socialism, with a nationalistic face instead of Socialism's international one. Fascism outside of Germany, while no shining beacon imo, was not the scientific genocidal machine that Hitler and the Nazi's made.
Blame Americans for slavery? well i am portuguese and i am not sure if there are slavers worst than Portuguese and Spanish.
I do praise america because they puted an end to it, and with that, america changed mentalities.
All three were horrible yes, but if Hitler were around as long as them, he might have made them look like Brownies.
Not sure the context here.
There are different ways to be offended though.
You can offend me by calling me names.
You can offend me by promoting stupid policies.
You can offend me by watching your city burn while you play a violin (or whatever it was)
You can offend me by killing (perceived) political opponents in an authoritarian regime.
You can offend me by building gas chambers, concentration camps, rounding up millions of people who offer no true resistance or threat to your regime... but hey, they have different ancestors so... of course they need to be killed by the millions, WHERE EVER they can be found. And, you will devote countless man hours to this effort.
That last category... that is a lot worse than Mao. Whose worst "deaths" were famine that resulted from horrible policy initiatives and large scale corruption at the local and provincial levels. He, of course, also purged political opponents, but not to the same extent as Hitler or Stalin. And chinese purges are not always lethal. Deng Xiaoping for example was purged but never killed...
That last category is also worse than Stalin's worst atrocities. HOWEVER, Stalin had a considerably longer and more stable regime with a much larger population...
But, that does not excuse his murderous purges, etc... You could argue that his purges were to avoid USSR strife during the coming war. That is, get rid of anyone who might collaborate with Nazis or the Japanese... but I am not an expert on those issues.
***So, yes, they all made decisions that resulted in the deaths of millions. But the reasoning behind those decisions (in my opinion) are substantially different.
no, they were not within international law.
Well, Stalin starved out Ukraine, but a lot of the killings were also because of religious beliefs or suspicion. And technically, Hitler's numbers were lower.
You can say Hitler was worse than Stalin or Mao. I tend to agree, but if we are going to count out people who murdered millions, we need to apply that standard all the way. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all belong in the same category in terms of evil. And they should all be in or all be out (In terms of morality, I'm very open to the idea that Hitler doesn't deserve to be in since he sucked at leadership.
@Zen Blade- I've heard his actions were technically allowed, but I am not sure. That's just what I've heard. I don't know what International Law was at the time.
This is correct. Fascism derives from the fascist party, which was Italian. Mussolini (the leader) was in power before Hitler. The Italian fascist party was very different from the German Nazi party.
However, in a more modern context fascism has come to mean any sort of dictatorial power with a nationalist flavor... but honestly, it does mean different things to different people. However, it is always meant as a bad thing.
Its usually meant as a bad thing. There is one poster on this site who is a fascist, proud of it, and has it in his title
Regarding international law, just check on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention_(1929)
That's 1929 law.
I would argue that mass murders are always against international law... but that aside, a large number of the deaths in the concentration camps were Soviet prisoners, including soviet JEWS... they worked, starved, died, and were killed just like anyone else.
Regarding Stalin's actions. Yes, what you say is true. But it wasn't because they were religious or Ukrainian. It was because those individuals posed a threat to his power. Religious leaders are LEADERS. Nationalists are LEADERS. Stalin's purpose was to cement his authority. And he tried to justify his actions with farce trials. The Nazis just LITERALLY rounded up people and killed them. They would present a list of names (or request said list) to local governors/leaders.... and they would expect all of those people to be shipped off to camps.
All of this is very well documented, and can be found easily on wikipedia. There are a lot of heroic tales of people helping commoners and civilians whose only crime was that they were Jewish. There are documented tales of leaders who were under Nazi occupation who tried to slow the trains down. Leaders who were basically in the position of give us the Jews or we will kill you and your leaders and replace them with Nazi officials.
No one can defend those actions. There is just no defense.
I was never attempting to defend them, I'm just not sure we should put Hitler in his own category without anyone else. I would argue Stalin and Mao had no justification either.
Yes, and usually with corporatism as opposed to direct government ownership. Let's be honest though, in a modern context Fascism means anyone who tells you not to do something.
To be fair, Stalin's paranoia led to massive numbers of people being murdered for no reason at all. I think a lot of the revulsion, deserved, is the way the Nazis were so "scientific", orderly, and deliberate about the whole thing. When the Fascists and the Nazis first came to power, a lot of people outside thought that they represented an apex of the modern, rational man. The discovery that this sort of modern man, basically "us", was capable of these "inhuman" things was probably tremendously shocking and internally revolting.
The Japanese also committed horrible atrocities, but I think they're actions were more "barbarous" (in the true sense of the term) and so weren't so personal. Plus we probably gave them a pass for political reasons.
Domination, your last sentence is my point. Other people though can and will argue that Stalin and Mao's *decisions* were justified.
Mao thought communes were actually good things. They were not. And the numbers being reported to him were completely made up by officials trying to reach quotas. Thus, famine!
Think about how officials make up graduation rates and fudge test scores and many other things just so that politicians can say we are improving our education... we are NOT. The difference here is that no one dies (immediately) from a lack of education.
Stalin's actions are far more difficult to justify, but he clearly attempted to do based on irrational fears. I don't think the killings were justifiable, but someone in a position of power might argue that they were.
No one is going to argue that Hitler and his Nazi party had justification for their actions.... No one within the mainstream of 20th or 21st century thought at least.
I despise Hitler. A canny politician and a charismatic leader, but deeply paranoid and turning that paranoia into an agenda of hatred carried out with chilling effect.
That said, if it weren't for the legal issues in Germany (and some other countries perhaps? not sure) I would say he should be Germany's second leader in the game.
I do wonder how German players feel about people suggesting a loathsome character like him as leader in Civ - but I suppose it is not much different to Russian players with Stalin.
One reason I would support Hitler getting in would be to shake up the leader roster a bit. Everygame it's usually the same leaders... Bismarck for Germany, Lizzy for England, Napoleon... etc..
It'd be nice if they started going through the not so great list of leaders. Like maybe Ivan the Terrible and Louis XVI. Maybe they could do it Civ4 style where there're multiple leaders for a country, one "great", the other not? It just seems so bland to have these same leaders game after game...
Actually there's much justification for the Nazi's early actions. Tearing up the treaty of versailles and re-occupying the Ruhr for example.
Edit: oh and I'm aware that Ivan did have a somewhat successful career, it's juwst that I think the golden horde was already starting to decline so w/ that in perspective his achievment doesn't mean too much to me. That and he's not remembered fondly, mostly due to his name
Valid point that a lot of Mao's deaths weren't on purpose, but he still could have stopped most of them. So he was still responsible.
Well, if you accept Darwinism (Which I personally do not), I think you can. Its very difficult, but it is possible.
Hitler's line of thinking was Social Darwinism to the extreme, he thought that since the Aryans were the most superior race (Which has no basis in fact), that he should kill all the inferiors to hurry along human evolution. Not to say that its a sensible conclusion, or really justifiable, but neither was Stalin's insanity. But it is useful to go through their rationalizations, and still be able to say "Yeah, he was a mass murdering evil monster."
I'd be OK with this, since that's happening to every nation. Who would be America's "Bad" leader though? Obama? Or better, FDR? Wait, that's already been done!
The problem is when you single out Germany as the one nation who deserves to have a horrible leader. That could be seen as offensive. But if it was that way for every nation, it would be cool. Though perhaps we should wait another 20 years for Hitler, I dunno.
Separate names with a comma.