Blutsbruder1905
Chieftain
Intruder13 said:
If I´m not totally wrong, Siggy´s 12 million ppl. were killed be Hitler´s regime, not Stalins
"Missing" Leader pet peeves
- Thread starter bhosp
- Start date
- Status
If I´m not totally wrong, Siggy´s 12 million ppl. were killed be Hitler´s regime, not Stalins
Blutsbruder1905 said:
HUH? Fleming discovered it. In fact, I don't believe the Nazi's ever used it for their own people... though there is apocryphal discussion that perhaps it kept Hitler from being infected after being injured during the 44 assassination attempt... but the Nazi's to my knowledge were never able to manufacture it.
Venger
Hm, try Kelo v. New London or Gonzalez v. Raich, for starters.
More on topic - I would have liked to have seen two rulers for more civs in the game, but while there are a lot of good suggestions it is probably best to go with the more well-known. It's not a problem for Rome and some others.
As for Stalin, he was in the first game but that was a little pre-PC. Now there are a lot of concerns about offending and just like they kept religion a little neutral I'm sure they did not want to irritate people by including Stalin. He does make sense since it would be nice to have one representative from both Communist Russia and pre-communist russia. Having both Catherine and Peter doesn't give the sense of flavor that you might want. I wouldn't have minded Lenin though I don't know too much about him as far as brutality goes.
FDR's inclusion irritates me but I've never understood the infatuation with Teddy Roosevelt either. Washington as the first ruler of a quite revolutionary state deserves to be in. I would put Thomas Jefferson as #2 perhaps (expansion and . Third would be a tie between Lincoln, FDR and Reagan, who were the American leaders most responsible for the relative success that they saw in the three major "wars" (Civil, Second World, Cold).
sturmtrupp
Chieftain
Matches10 said:
Since you brought it up. This really irks me, there was so much potential using real world religions, that I thought they should have gone a lot further with religion. For one thing a city with a particular religion could have some sort of perk unit. Not to mention civil wars that might have broken out, or religious genocides, or even rebellions that can break out in one city due to different religions. The whole, lets not offend anyone is pretty stupid, considering they have Mao and other mass murderers and barbarians in the game. Not to mention the game can highly revolve around war, which is also not very PC.
As for Stalin, I don't think there is much lost by including Catherine the Great or Peter the Great. A name that will almost certainly will never be given to Stalin.
With regard to the Hitler issue... If he had not tried to wipe out the Jews and the Slavs, he would have been in a much stronger position. The Jews were well-educated and the Slavs initially supported Hitler when Germany attacked Russia only to discover that they were treated worse by the Germans than by the Russians.
The Nuclear issue is that Einstein was Austrian and Fermi was Italian and, if it were not for Hitler's racism, both would quite probably have stayed in Europe rather than emigrating to America in the 30's.
The Moon issue is that it was German rocket scientists that developed the V2 bombs which were the first true rockets and became the foundation for both the Russian and American space programs.
With regard to Stalin (from an earlier comment about Eastern Europe)... Poland and the Baltic states were artificial countries created after the first world war based upon states that had existed in the past but had long since lost their independence. Both had a large Russian population and so Stalin's deal with Hitler was pretty much confirming the status quo from Stalin's perspective. Stalin did not heavily colonise them, but DID use them as a buffer when Hitler attacked as expected. This gave Stalin the time he needed to move factories behind the Caucasus mountains and start rolling out the greatest tank of the era, which was when the famed Panzers finally started losing.
Even after the second world war, he followed the same basic approach. While Eastern Europe were definitely client states of Russia, they were not generally abused or repressed particularly (Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 being the two exceptions in 30 years that prove the rule). Compare with America's behaviour in Latin America and South East Asia during the same period - just how much freedom did either country promote ?
Thus, while Stalin (like Mao with Tibet) did expand his effective borders, I would argue that he was not actually expansionist. I would probably rate Stalin as Spiritual and Aggressive (no anarchy, big military), which is a combo that does not otherwise exist. Hitler would probably be Expansive and Aggressive, but that's Genghis Khan already.
The Nuclear issue is that Einstein was Austrian and Fermi was Italian and, if it were not for Hitler's racism, both would quite probably have stayed in Europe rather than emigrating to America in the 30's.
The Moon issue is that it was German rocket scientists that developed the V2 bombs which were the first true rockets and became the foundation for both the Russian and American space programs.
With regard to Stalin (from an earlier comment about Eastern Europe)... Poland and the Baltic states were artificial countries created after the first world war based upon states that had existed in the past but had long since lost their independence. Both had a large Russian population and so Stalin's deal with Hitler was pretty much confirming the status quo from Stalin's perspective. Stalin did not heavily colonise them, but DID use them as a buffer when Hitler attacked as expected. This gave Stalin the time he needed to move factories behind the Caucasus mountains and start rolling out the greatest tank of the era, which was when the famed Panzers finally started losing.
Even after the second world war, he followed the same basic approach. While Eastern Europe were definitely client states of Russia, they were not generally abused or repressed particularly (Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 being the two exceptions in 30 years that prove the rule). Compare with America's behaviour in Latin America and South East Asia during the same period - just how much freedom did either country promote ?
Thus, while Stalin (like Mao with Tibet) did expand his effective borders, I would argue that he was not actually expansionist. I would probably rate Stalin as Spiritual and Aggressive (no anarchy, big military), which is a combo that does not otherwise exist. Hitler would probably be Expansive and Aggressive, but that's Genghis Khan already.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
.
How does Kelo vs New London violate your constitutional rights? While I do not agree with the supreme courts decision on eminent domain (blame the more liberal leaners on the court for that - not the right) it is still in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution for the government to take private property for public use and give the owners "just" compensation. Now, if they took your property and didnt give any compensation, I would agree with you - but that is not the case here.
In Gonzalez vs Raich you bring into play the issue of whether someone has the right to grow medical marijuana while it is still against the law of the United States, but not necessarily against state law. The supreme court heard the case and ruled in favor of the federal governemnt once again on the issue. Once again, the more right leaning members of the court dissented. The medical benefit of marijuana is touted by some, downplayed by others - until the fed government makes it legal, you dont have a "constitutional right" to grow and smoke pot. Nice try.
Civilicious
Warlord
After the French and Indian War the British decreed a line (basically the Appalachian ridge) beyond which no further colonial expansion could take place. This was done to prevent any further costly conflicts with the native americans and guaranteed a peaceful existence for both sides. I believe this was the Proclamation of 1763.
As you might expect, this did not sit well with the colonials, many of whom had greedy (go figure) designs on indian lands and viewed them as their rightful spoils of the french-indian war. This faction was lead by a number of already wealthy Virginians, most notable amongst whom was a certain George Washington. The very same George Washington who was a provacateur of the french-indian war, who illegally surveyed lands in the ohio valley during the war, and who owned 65,000 acres in over 30 different locations.
Of course there were a lot of other factors in the colonies opposition to the Proclamation and in the run up to the revolution, but at its core we see the same old story. Rich men killing to get more. Terrorist is just a word, and means different things to different people, but he is one in my book.
As you might expect, this did not sit well with the colonials, many of whom had greedy (go figure) designs on indian lands and viewed them as their rightful spoils of the french-indian war. This faction was lead by a number of already wealthy Virginians, most notable amongst whom was a certain George Washington. The very same George Washington who was a provacateur of the french-indian war, who illegally surveyed lands in the ohio valley during the war, and who owned 65,000 acres in over 30 different locations.
Of course there were a lot of other factors in the colonies opposition to the Proclamation and in the run up to the revolution, but at its core we see the same old story. Rich men killing to get more. Terrorist is just a word, and means different things to different people, but he is one in my book.
MobBoss said:
Actually your constitutional understanding is flawed.
The constitution does not say what the people may do.
All the constitution does is say what the GOVERNMENT may do.
And according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, the people reserve ALL the rights not specifically handed over to the government; the government has ONLY the specifically enumerated powers in the constitution.
By your logic, if the congress passed a law requiring state notification and permission to cross state borders, it would be completely legal.
The reason the "right leaning" members of the Supreme Court probably ruled the way they did was because they realize congress has no constitutional authority to ban marijuana.
It's scary how many people think our rights are dependent upon what the government says they are.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Andicus said:Actually your constitutional understanding is flawed.
The constitution does not say what the people may do.
All the constitution does is say what the GOVERNMENT may do.
And according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, the people reserve ALL the rights not specifically handed over to the government; the government has ONLY the specifically enumerated powers in the constitution.
By your logic, if the congress passed a law requiring state notification and permission to cross state borders, it would be completely legal.
The reason the "right leaning" members of the Supreme Court probably ruled the way they did was because they realize congress has no constitutional authority to ban marijuana.
It's scary how many people think our rights are dependent upon what the government says they are.
I dont profess to be an attorney specializing in constiutional law. However, I have to disagree with your statement regarding congress. Of course congress has the ability make law as regards to the use of controlled substances, of which marijuana is one. The poster to which I was replying was under the impression that the case mentioned somehow took a constitutional right away from the populace but didnt go into any detail as to the substance of the case. And if what you say is true, then why oh why is the media full of issues such as "right to choose"'; "right to privacy"; "right to bear arms"; etc. etc....
MobBoss said:
They didn't go to war for personal gains, like empire expansion. And in this game you are saying that it's easy to use all the personal freedom civics without any control on war weariness through force (military to keep people happy, jails) and have an expansion/domination campaign? I don't think so. Sooner or later your going to have to crack down on your people.
MobBoss said:
First of all, if you think Rome had the same government through out it's existence, you are wrong. However, I was trying to compare modern to ancient, and I meant to clarify at the end that Rome didn't go Fascists/Communists but they had the whole Big Government expansion that usually sacrafices the people for the empire. I need to edit that post. And you may find this quote from James Madison most insightful - "Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
MobBoss said:
Read about what's really going on in Louisiana. As Andicus clarified above, the constitution protects us from the government. They slight handedly included the 14th Admendant that says the any persons born in the U.S., or naturalized, are under jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Why do you think that clause is there? If it wasn't, the government couldn't do what it is doing now, which is telling you not to smoke pot. When you understand the world we lived in now, compared to how much freedom we had originally, you can see how our rights were taken away, and how they are being taken away now. We are dependant on Big Brother now, and it's only a matter of time before it gets worse. We were a self governing nation. A republic, as Benjamin Franklin said.
MobBoss said:
Have you read the patriot act? I suggest you do.
MobBoss said:
When your leaders lie you into war, it's a sham. If you think they didn't, well this is a lost cause. I don't see how people think people in such high places could possibly have their insterest at hand when they don't even live in the same world they do. This is your typical pyramid hierarchy that over time obscures the rulers view of the people and detaches him from them. This system works only in small groups, not spanning the entire nation. After a while peoples rights/welfare are easily expendable, especially when they have no concept of where they came from.
MobBoss said:
Truly in the military? Listen, I didn't take an oath to protect the president, nor congress, from enemies foreign and domestic. It was the constitution.
MobBoss said:
I conceded this temporarily, as I cannot find it "easy". I cannot for the life of me remember this guys name. All I remember it was on C-Span. I sent an email to a friend who showed me it, and I will show you later if you would like. I did not claim that Bush was behind 9/11, but there was a similar event that got us into a war. Pearl Harbor. It is a well known fact that enough officials knew about Pearl Harbor before hand to do anything about it. But it was to get us into the war.
MobBoss said:
Now it's mutually exclusive. But, once again, this is not what I signed up for, nor why. But you seem to know what a real military person sounds like. So, tell me. What do they sound like? How do they think? If you mean that military personel are supposed to be stupid brainless fools, then yes, I don't fit the mold.
The consitution stated we have "inalienable rights". You seem to be ok with having to get licenses for driving, marriage, owing weapons, things that people have done for years without government getting invovled. This is sad. It was never like this. These are basic human rights that have been turned into privileges. About the eminent domain, that clause is talking about public use. These new cases are dealin with private businesses. This is what I was saying about democracy. The commercial district gets more protection than the public does. Mussolini said that fascism is the merger of the corporation and the state. Umm, we aren't that far away. Who do you think does the real talking? Money or the people? See my quote below...
MobBoss said:
Journalism is dead in American media. If you think that the media gives you unbiased news, you need to read other sources. Do not be the man of one book. This is why other countries think we are stupid. Their mainstream media hasn't been bought out yet, so when they compare what they are hearing to what we are saying, we look like fools. And being in the military, I see this all the time overseas. Listen, this information is out there, but if you don't care to find out, you won't.
Here's a link that parallels Facists Germany with Neo-Conservative America so you can understand what some people are talking about when they say "Bush is Hitler". http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
Fair enough. I won't argue about this since it's not an area I'm particularly knowledgeable on.
However, my point was that Hitler wouldn't deserve to be in the game if the sole criteria is having been a great leader - that sole criteria would hand the Civilisation IV (or any other version of the game) leadership role to another German.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Ok, I had a nice reply all written out and somehow lost it when I had to relog to post. Here is another try.
What freedoms did we have orginally that we do not have today? Are you saying that having laws vs illegal drug use take away your freedom? Our nation is a nation of laws - no law, no nation = total anarchy.
Yes and as a law abiding citizen I have no problems with it.
I dont think Bush lied anymore than Clinton, Kerry or any other world leader who was totally convinced that Saddam had WMDs. Hell, WMDs were found, just not in the numbers they were looking for - sarin artillery shells were found as was over a metric ton of enriched uranium. Personally, I think all the stuff was packed off and sent to Syria just like he sent his jets off to Iran in the first gulf war.
Actually you took an oath to follow the orders of the president and protect the constitution. Here it is:"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." So in essence yes you did.
I
You are referring to the conspiracy theory that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and let it happen in order to bring us into the war. There is no solid proof of this anywhere.
Why do we have to be brainless fools if we believe other than you? A real military person remembers his oath and honors it. He serves his country proudly despite the anti-war sentiment that says he is wasting his life for nothing. He knows his duty and accomplishes his mission.
Yes, I think having to get a drivers license, marriage licenses or a gun permit is just fine. To me, the law surrounding these issues makes logical sense, however, you seem to believe that the law takes away your rights somehow. Our country could not exist without laws. Sure you have a right to own a firearm and getting a concealed weapons permit and background check are not unreasonable things to have. If you think that those laws are somehow hampering your freedom to drive, get married or fire a gun, then you have control issues not freedom issues. BTW, I do agree with you on the eminent domain and the definition of public use. BUT, Prez Bush and most of congress agrees with you as well - its the Ruth Bader Ginsbergs and the left of the supreme court that have changed that definition, not the right. If you want that definition to be used in its more traditional sense, then you should support the Prez and his candidates for the supreme court.
Journalism dead? How do you figure? You have those who take positions on the left and those who lean right and all points in between. I dont think its dead at all - hell, if you cant take an opposing view then oh well. As for the media of other countries - you mean the ones that thumbed their nose at us when hurricane katrina hit? Al-Jazzera maybe? Bub, I think you are the one who has been indoctrinated to the point where you cant tell right from wrong.
What freedoms did we have orginally that we do not have today? Are you saying that having laws vs illegal drug use take away your freedom? Our nation is a nation of laws - no law, no nation = total anarchy.
Yes and as a law abiding citizen I have no problems with it.
I dont think Bush lied anymore than Clinton, Kerry or any other world leader who was totally convinced that Saddam had WMDs. Hell, WMDs were found, just not in the numbers they were looking for - sarin artillery shells were found as was over a metric ton of enriched uranium. Personally, I think all the stuff was packed off and sent to Syria just like he sent his jets off to Iran in the first gulf war.
.
Actually you took an oath to follow the orders of the president and protect the constitution. Here it is:"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." So in essence yes you did.
I
You are referring to the conspiracy theory that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and let it happen in order to bring us into the war. There is no solid proof of this anywhere.
.
Why do we have to be brainless fools if we believe other than you? A real military person remembers his oath and honors it. He serves his country proudly despite the anti-war sentiment that says he is wasting his life for nothing. He knows his duty and accomplishes his mission.
Yes, I think having to get a drivers license, marriage licenses or a gun permit is just fine. To me, the law surrounding these issues makes logical sense, however, you seem to believe that the law takes away your rights somehow. Our country could not exist without laws. Sure you have a right to own a firearm and getting a concealed weapons permit and background check are not unreasonable things to have. If you think that those laws are somehow hampering your freedom to drive, get married or fire a gun, then you have control issues not freedom issues. BTW, I do agree with you on the eminent domain and the definition of public use. BUT, Prez Bush and most of congress agrees with you as well - its the Ruth Bader Ginsbergs and the left of the supreme court that have changed that definition, not the right. If you want that definition to be used in its more traditional sense, then you should support the Prez and his candidates for the supreme court.
Journalism dead? How do you figure? You have those who take positions on the left and those who lean right and all points in between. I dont think its dead at all - hell, if you cant take an opposing view then oh well. As for the media of other countries - you mean the ones that thumbed their nose at us when hurricane katrina hit? Al-Jazzera maybe? Bub, I think you are the one who has been indoctrinated to the point where you cant tell right from wrong.
Now I suppose you think that link leads to a good journalism source. The funny thing is is that the left actually exhibits more facist sides than the right. The "if you dont think like we do you are stupid" mentality and the lack of ability to discuss anything logically pretty much sums it up. Yeah, I suppose a leftwing lemming would chant something like "bush is hitler" all the way to the cliff edge and right off it. Tell you what - keep it up. Hate nationalism, god, religion, the military and all the would be right and decent in the world...Ma and Pa America are taking more notice these days to whats actually being said and done. Hate him or love him, Bush was re-elected simply because his views were closer to the moderates of america than Kerry's was.....all that the anti-god, anti-military, anti-hetero speak of the left will do is drive droves of moderates to the right. If you really and I mean really think "Bush is Hitler", then you probably need some type of therapy. Seriously.
Phyr_Negator
Anti-tolerast
Hitler and Stalin both deserve to be included, cuz they were one of the most influental individuals in history. Now people say something like:"I don't like'em so remove 'em NOW!" but none can deny their influence over history.
By the way - never it was proved that Stalin killed own people, only rumors and suggestions. No one proved that Mao killed his people. Holocaust's theories are highly questionable. So leaders should be included by their influence over world's history, not cuz silly "political-correctness".
By the way - never it was proved that Stalin killed own people, only rumors and suggestions. No one proved that Mao killed his people. Holocaust's theories are highly questionable. So leaders should be included by their influence over world's history, not cuz silly "political-correctness".
You keep talking about this left-right paradigm like that is the important issue here. It's not. I am not left or right, I just see certain things our founding fathers warned us of. You should check out quotes from our founding fathers, it really is insightful. I don't side with people because of their "orientation", that's stupid and causes unnecessary division. I am not naive; this country is more divided now than it has ever been with this left-right crap. Will you even take a look at that link to see if their may even be some truth instead of attacking it immediately? This is so big, that it can't even be contained in this forum (and it shouldn't, this was about leaders in Civ 4 and this going to be my last post about this issue).
As far as laws, I understand you need laws to keep the peace, but sometimes these laws run in favor of private businesses at the expense of personal freedoms. Our republican form of government worked fine until the banks setup their monetary system. Look up Federal Reserve Bank. It's not federally owned, but privately owned. I am not a conspiracy "theorist" check out Lewis v. United States for the ruling of the Supreme Court. According to the constitution, only congress can make money, and there is no amendment to let the bank(s) do this. If you cannot see the obvious merger of state and corporation in America, there isn't anything else I can say.
If you read that oath a little more carefully, I am protecting the constitution, not the government, and I will obey those over me. If they (those appointed over me) are the enemies of the constitution, I have an obligation to the constitution over them, bottom line. Ever heard of not obeying an unlawful order? It's funny that you keep attacking me as if I am a "fake" military person. You don't even know me. There is no need to get personal here. We can have a discussion if you are adamant about the truth, but if you just want to argue, I am not going to feed your ego. I don't need to defend my "left-wing/right-wing" (one or the other depending on the readers bias) stance, because I don't have one. I know what I don't agree with, whether that view is considered to be of one side or the other. At the end of the day, the right and the left is just a smoke screen. We are all people.
Let us not be divided and conquered.
So uhh... how bout a game of Civ there, tough guy?
As far as laws, I understand you need laws to keep the peace, but sometimes these laws run in favor of private businesses at the expense of personal freedoms. Our republican form of government worked fine until the banks setup their monetary system. Look up Federal Reserve Bank. It's not federally owned, but privately owned. I am not a conspiracy "theorist" check out Lewis v. United States for the ruling of the Supreme Court. According to the constitution, only congress can make money, and there is no amendment to let the bank(s) do this. If you cannot see the obvious merger of state and corporation in America, there isn't anything else I can say.
If you read that oath a little more carefully, I am protecting the constitution, not the government, and I will obey those over me. If they (those appointed over me) are the enemies of the constitution, I have an obligation to the constitution over them, bottom line. Ever heard of not obeying an unlawful order? It's funny that you keep attacking me as if I am a "fake" military person. You don't even know me. There is no need to get personal here. We can have a discussion if you are adamant about the truth, but if you just want to argue, I am not going to feed your ego. I don't need to defend my "left-wing/right-wing" (one or the other depending on the readers bias) stance, because I don't have one. I know what I don't agree with, whether that view is considered to be of one side or the other. At the end of the day, the right and the left is just a smoke screen. We are all people.
Let us not be divided and conquered.
So uhh... how bout a game of Civ there, tough guy?
Llotyhy
Chieftain
On topic:
If you're looking for a mod containing new leaders, be sure to check out my Leaders Mod at:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=139774
If you're looking for a mod containing new leaders, be sure to check out my Leaders Mod at:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=139774
As far as 'terrorism' goes, as the saying says: "One mans terrorist is another freedom fighter".
If the American founding fathers had been caught by the British, they'd have been hung as terrorists and traitors....but as history is written by the winners they are considered freedom fighters.
---
Personally I think the exclusion of Byzantium/Ottoman Empire is pretty shocking....without these two powers it's possible to argue that there would have been no Renaissance and all us Europeans/Americans would still be strabbling in the dirt in our ancestral countries of origin.
---
Objectively there is no reason for Hitler not to be included.....
1) He brought back the German economy from total breakdown to becoming extremely effective....no mean feat after the 1929 crash.
2) He abrogated the Versailles treaty and united (rightly or wrongly) the German speaking people.
3) The Weimar Republic was in a state of near total break down post 1929...there was rioting on the streets between left and right wing and the govt fell frequently due to over 27 different parties sharing the vote......Hitler established safety and security under his (oppressive) regime.
Historically it's possible to argue that if it hadn't been for the slight matter (irony) of WW2 and the holocaust, he may have gone down in history as a great man.
Subjectively he can't be included because everyone knows how evil he was (unlike Stalin or Mao) and the hard right wing is still a problem even today within Europe. Including him would hurt too many people who's feelings towards him are raw as well as seeming to glorify extreme right wingism within certain peoples minds
---
From my British perspective, I'd have liked to see Oliver Cromwell included......or how about a system whereby your leader (and traits) change every so often.....would add a bit of diversity into how a civ plays
If the American founding fathers had been caught by the British, they'd have been hung as terrorists and traitors....but as history is written by the winners they are considered freedom fighters.
---
Personally I think the exclusion of Byzantium/Ottoman Empire is pretty shocking....without these two powers it's possible to argue that there would have been no Renaissance and all us Europeans/Americans would still be strabbling in the dirt in our ancestral countries of origin.
---
Objectively there is no reason for Hitler not to be included.....
1) He brought back the German economy from total breakdown to becoming extremely effective....no mean feat after the 1929 crash.
2) He abrogated the Versailles treaty and united (rightly or wrongly) the German speaking people.
3) The Weimar Republic was in a state of near total break down post 1929...there was rioting on the streets between left and right wing and the govt fell frequently due to over 27 different parties sharing the vote......Hitler established safety and security under his (oppressive) regime.
Historically it's possible to argue that if it hadn't been for the slight matter (irony) of WW2 and the holocaust, he may have gone down in history as a great man.
Subjectively he can't be included because everyone knows how evil he was (unlike Stalin or Mao) and the hard right wing is still a problem even today within Europe. Including him would hurt too many people who's feelings towards him are raw as well as seeming to glorify extreme right wingism within certain peoples minds
---
From my British perspective, I'd have liked to see Oliver Cromwell included......or how about a system whereby your leader (and traits) change every so often.....would add a bit of diversity into how a civ plays
Siggy19 said:
BULL****!!! Where did you get this info from?
Baltic states DID NOT have large Russian population before WWII!!! Most of the Russians ever to be here [in Baltics] arrived after WWII [they were 'invited' to come here by Russian communist governments; YES Baltics were actually heavily colonized in communist times by Russians; actually I know NOT A SINGLE Russian here whos family had lived here before 1940]!!! Here was a rather large GERMAN population before WWII, but they all left [read: fled] as WWII started. Baltic states and Poland were not artificial. They are NATIONAL states for Latvians, Estonians, Lithuenians and Poles. By the way -- Baltics were for most of the time very seperated from Russia -- even when included in Russian Tzsaric Empire, actually they were ruled by nobles of GERMAN origion [who arrived here in form of crusaders in 13th century and conquested the lands from local Baltic and FinnoUgric tribes].
And yes, STALIN heavily abused Baltics. Actually there was carried out what could be very well called a holocaust against Latvians; tens of thousands people were sent to Siberian labor camps, no better than Nazi concentration camps. And do not try to say it's no true -- MY family members [my grandmother was a young girl] were among the people sent to those camps, and they were not Latvian politicans/freedom fighters family, they were simple farmers [I believe, they were sent to those death camps only because they were Latvians]! They were forced into trains ment for cattle and taken all the way from Latvia to Siberia... I'm glad my grandparents managed to return from those terrible Siberian places. It's awfully painful to see now how their health was damaged by that terrible Stalinic conduct and how they have suffered, how many friends they have lost there and to hear how they were abused when they returned from the camps in communist times [they had nowhere to live; all their family had ever owned had been destroyed; my uncle was not even allowed to study at university, because his family had been to those camps...].
Forgive me if the post souds harsh [or is slightly offtopic], but most people in the world do not know these things or simply do not want to know them. But how can I remain silent about this, if my own family has suffered so badly? And yes:
STALIN MUST NOT BE INCLUDED in Civ ever again. There are still too many people who tremble hearing his damned name. He WAS as bad as Hitler.
I love it when leftist Americans spit forth agitprop on how the Soviets just really weren't that bad, especially compared to Americans! Invariably, someone who actually LIVED there shows up to set the record straight. Good job, Juno - those sympathetic in the West to Soviet aims most often never had the burden of living under them...
Scattershooting for a minute here - in Louisiana, the Court ruled that the city can NOT confiscate weapons. That has stopped, was stopped, by a court reading the Constitution. As to Kelo, thank the left - the dissenters were the right members of the court - as the left often has no problem deciding how to better use YOUR property. Not sure how this plays into the Bush hatred that was espoused, he wasn't behind either of these...
And no, one mans terrorist ISN'T another man's freedom fighter. When the military took over in (insert country name here), they weren't considered freedom fighters, they were considered to have staged a coup. In order to be a freedom fighter, one must have a JUST claim to self rule as opposed to a current UNJUST rule. French resistance fighters WERE freedom fighters. The FLN are NOT. The American revolutionaries WERE freedom fighters. Al Qaeda is NOT.
Venger
Scattershooting for a minute here - in Louisiana, the Court ruled that the city can NOT confiscate weapons. That has stopped, was stopped, by a court reading the Constitution. As to Kelo, thank the left - the dissenters were the right members of the court - as the left often has no problem deciding how to better use YOUR property. Not sure how this plays into the Bush hatred that was espoused, he wasn't behind either of these...
And no, one mans terrorist ISN'T another man's freedom fighter. When the military took over in (insert country name here), they weren't considered freedom fighters, they were considered to have staged a coup. In order to be a freedom fighter, one must have a JUST claim to self rule as opposed to a current UNJUST rule. French resistance fighters WERE freedom fighters. The FLN are NOT. The American revolutionaries WERE freedom fighters. Al Qaeda is NOT.
Venger
- Status
Similar threads
