Napolean?

[Avayaman]

hmmm.. here's a weird thought... what if he just pretended to be racist... as a way of unifying germany at that time... but got carried away... just food for thought..

 

[Warman17]

No worse a warmonger than Genghis Khan, yet he's still in the game. If Genghis Khan is in, Napoleon can be.

 

[ironduck]

hmmm.. here's a weird thought... what if he just pretended to be racist... as a way of unifying germany at that time... but got carried away... just food for thought..

Got carried away murdering every single jewish person his rabid followers could find? Got carried away murdering the communists, the intellectuals, the gypsies, the homosexuals, the resisters? Got carried away building extermination camps and allocating extra resources to speed up the extermination as Germany was rapidly losing the war, so as to murder everyone before the allies made it to the camps?

Hitler was ****ed up and the millions of Germans that were hand over fist to help his sick pursuits were as well.

 

[Avayaman]

well, i'm not defending him, but illusions of grandeur or imperialism or colonization weren't invented for him. People like him have existed before, and will continue to exist... he's just more successful than most...

 

[ironduck]

How was he more successful than most? He managed to get the three major powers angry enough to completely wipe out Germany. He had no interest in the good for the German people or anyone else, it was just blind violence.

The thing is up until the attack of Poland his agressive stance worked and everyone caved in because they had had enough war 20 years earlier. Of course that wasn't enough as Germany was knee deep in debt and needed to plunder some countries, so they could either have gone bankrupt or started the war at that point.

I just don't understand the interest in having Hitler (or Stalin or Mao) as leaders in Civ. They were so incredibly incompetent, anything good that happened while they were in power happened *in spite* of them. All they ever did was destroy.

 

[Communisto]

Well, DeGaule was also a pretty inspirational leader for France, so your argument that old Bony was the only one is a tad unfair ... but I don't have a problem with Napoleon.

As for Nap not committing genocide, tell that to the Spanish who rose up against him. Stop rewriting facts!

degaulle was a slimy, cowardly, underhanded bastard.

I agree that napoleon did some bad things but hell, every leader in Civ contributed to mass killings in some way ('sept mabye gandhi) can anyone say elizabeth?

sissy cultraly leaders dont count, and if the spanish rose up aginst him, thenr thay deserved it like any group of rebal bastereds..

that was one of the most ignorant thing ignorant things i have ever heard on CFC

 

[AlmightyBob]

the difference between Napoleon and Hitler is that Napoleon, while a warmonger, created some good during his reign. he ended the reign of terror following the french revolution and he instituted the napoleonic code to most of europe(which is the basis for most of the civil codes existing in Europe today).

Hitler on the otherhand was pure unaduturated evil (the type you get in a box of tide with bleach), name one good, long lasting effect hitler had on europe.

 

[vbraun]

Hitler on the otherhand was pure unaduturated evil (the type you get in a box of tide with bleach), name one good, long lasting effect hitler had on europe.

Union?

....

 

[AlmightyBob]

Union?

I actually laughed at that.

Hitler's EUnion wasn't that long lasting.

 

[vbraun]

No, he told the rest of Europe after the war that they are weak seperated. His actions were a very good reason for forming the EU.

 

[AlmightyBob]

No, he told the rest of Europe after the war that they are weak seperated. His actions were a very good reason for forming the EU.

If your an American, a unified Europe is not a good thing

seriously though, that is a secondary consequence of his actions and not really his doing.

 

[vbraun]

If your an American, a unified Europe is not a good thing

What if I feel European?

seriously though, that is a secondary consequence of his actions and not really his doing.

He "woke" Europe up.

 

[AlmightyBob]

He "woke" Europe up.

by killing 30 million of them, thank good my alarm clock doesn't have that function.

 

[ironduck]

Oh dear.

Now it is counted as a positive that Hitler's destruction resulted in closer cooperation between countries to avoid another war? This is like saying that it's a good idea to go out and murder random people in the street because it will bring more awareness to crime.

 

[vbraun]

I'm not saying what Hitler did was good. There was just something good that came out of it.

This is like saying that it's a good idea to go out and murder random people in the street because it will bring more awareness to crime.

Not all crimes are murders. What you propose would just ban gun use or maybe bigger jails.

 

[AlmightyBob]

I'm not saying what Hitler did was good. There was just something good that came out of it.

yes, ok. . . but Hitler is not the kind of world leader we want hobnobbing with the likes of George Washington and Ghandi and therefor not the type of peronality we want in our video game.

 

[Urederra]

Hitler on the otherhand was pure unaduturated evil (the type you get in a box of tide with bleach), name one good, long lasting effect hitler had on europe.[/QUOTE]

VolksWagen factories?

I think that the question is not whether one or the other made good things rather than the bad things both of them made. I am sure that Napoleon is very appreciated in France, but not in the countries he invaded, where he did not good.

My initial point was that is not good to ban the presence of Hitler just because he was a murderer and the Jews might be very dissapointed, and I put Napoleon as an example, just to say that he is seen as a murderer in other countries. So, if Hitler is a bad option because he was a murderer, Napoleon is also a bad option, and Mao, and most of the CIV III leaders can be regarded as murderers by the countries they invaded.

Anyway, I must point out that Civ4 is only a game. And I will buy it regardless which civilization or leaders are included in the game.

and BTW, I think that the basis of the european civil codes lies in the roman laws. Even tribunal is a latin word that comes from the roman model of justice. I might be wrong, but that is what I remember from my history books.

 

[ironduck]

Not all crimes are murders. What you propose would just ban gun use or maybe bigger jails.

I'm pretty sure you got my point just fine, you are just looking to provoke. The original coal and steel union (the start of the EU) was created partly to avoid further wars. You cannot credit warmongers for the subsequent need for cooperation that reduces the risk of war.

Apparently it is very fashionable among some people to take the other side of the argument and find redeeming qualities of monsters like Hitler and Stalin. Civ is a game, if you like to have Hitler in there, fine. But the actual Hitler and his destruction of Europe was not a game. Stop treating it like it is.

 

[AlmightyBob]

and BTW, I think that the basis of the european civil codes lies in the roman laws. Even tribunal is a latin word that comes from the roman model of justice. I might be wrong, but that is what I remember from my history books.

you are indeed right, they are indeed both, nepoleonic code is similar to roman codes. do a google on the subject and you will be pleasanly surprised.

weastern european codes are derived from roman values, but those countries without roman influence, ie grearmany and eastern europe, got thier civil codes from conquest by napoleon.

 

[vbraun]

I'm pretty sure you got my point just fine, you are just looking to provoke.

I got your point. I really try not to provoke, but I do that sometimes.

The original coal and steel union (the start of the EU) was created partly to avoid further wars. You cannot credit warmongers for the subsequent need for cooperation that reduces the risk of war.

I can if I want.

Apparently it is very fashionable among some people to take the other side of the argument and find redeeming qualities of monsters like Hitler and Stalin. Civ is a game, if you like to have Hitler in there, fine.

Are you treating Hitler and Stalin like another species? They are still human and there both dead.

But the actual Hitler and his destruction of Europe was not a game. Stop treating it like it is.

So why let a game based on history suffer from these kinds of arguments?

And I'm really feeling like leaving you alone now.