New Leader: Adolf Hitler
- Thread starter Saketh
- Start date
dutchking
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 3,317
Wow, that seems a bit TOO realistic... But whatever... The thing I don't like is the hair on his head. It looks a bit messy. But I'm not downloading it so no need to edit, just feedback.
Socratatus
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,636
NecroAngel
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 47
The fact he was a terrible person aside, Hitler was not intelligent; he was a moron. The only reason he won battles were because of his generals, which were very good. Rommel, Guderian, Kesslering, and the like.
Examples of offensives Hitler planned himself:
Operation citadel, also known as the battle of Kurks: Half the German army destroyed .
Battle of the bulge: Basically the remainder of the German tank force destroyed.
Insisting on taking the city of Stalingrad: ...That went well.
The only thing he was good at was telling the German public what they wanted to hear - that their economy and whatnot wasn't bad because of their own faults, it was because of DA EVIL JOOZ, etc.
In any case, I would really like a BTS mod of this. I think it's very stupid to not have Hitler in this game.... Stalin is no better really, just a lot more intelligent. Hitler, regardless of how terrible or stupid he was, was a very important person in history.
Examples of offensives Hitler planned himself:
Operation citadel, also known as the battle of Kurks: Half the German army destroyed .
Battle of the bulge: Basically the remainder of the German tank force destroyed.
Insisting on taking the city of Stalingrad: ...That went well.
The only thing he was good at was telling the German public what they wanted to hear - that their economy and whatnot wasn't bad because of their own faults, it was because of DA EVIL JOOZ, etc.
In any case, I would really like a BTS mod of this. I think it's very stupid to not have Hitler in this game.... Stalin is no better really, just a lot more intelligent. Hitler, regardless of how terrible or stupid he was, was a very important person in history.
That is just a stupid post.Hitler was a political genius, his downfall was underestimating the SU military power and a terrible winter.Pretty much the whole of the western world thought the SU would fall in less than six months, because they were thought to be so poor after the Finnish war.Hitlers late war plans were just desperation he had no other options.After the war these Generals were just laying blame elsewhere.
omarshaheen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Messages
- 82
He was and still is a divisive figure, everybody had their faults, as well as moments of genius, the fact that he had a profound impact on our lives is undeniable, the fact that he did impact a lot of people and the flow of invention in his age is also undeniable, simply a friendly Chancellor would have never pushed ahead a ballistic missile program that everybody World wide thought was impossible at the time.
Extreme views of his personality and his contributions are normal because he simply lost at the end, so I encourage the skeptics to look beyond Germany's defeat and examine what portion of their lives was directly impacted by German inventions and accomplishments during WWII, and the role its Chancellor must have had in such accomplishments.
Extreme views of his personality and his contributions are normal because he simply lost at the end, so I encourage the skeptics to look beyond Germany's defeat and examine what portion of their lives was directly impacted by German inventions and accomplishments during WWII, and the role its Chancellor must have had in such accomplishments.
thecivdude
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2007
- Messages
- 45
In a wider sense, we haven't seen anybody having a technological edge and the will to use this edge against civilians (under any pretext) since Hitler, that is probably until G.W. Bush came to power! and if we would take the time to compare, I think that Bush would do Hitler a lot of face lifting if put side to side with him
obviously, you're not a bush fan. i wondered if you could elaborate on your claim that bush, either by personal choice or as commander-in-cheif, "used this (technological) edge against civilians (under any pretext) like no one since Hitler".... and i'm not sure what you mean by "Bush would do Hitler a lot of face lifting if put side to side with him"
i mean, i guess i would like to hear how you might compare bush to hitler in more detail... just elaborate a little for me. and by reading that quote... i wonder where you are from? just curious.
my general opinion is that, no matter how knowledgeable, or intelligent you might like to sound, as soon as you say something like that, you thoroughly undermine your own credibility. just wondering why you would do that?
next, i see you followed that up by another post in this same thread about Hitler, praising how his role as German "Chancelor" (Dictator, let's be real) which enabled him to so significantly add to the contributions of the quality of life that we all enjoy today.... well, it sounds to me like you're asking everyone to look at the rosier side of hitler (let's not look at his abhorent, evil attributes, and look at hitler, the man, the inventor, who enriched all our lives today) while at the same time sliding in a little comparison of bush to hitler as a killer of civilians.
please, elaborate on this for me. are bush and hitler the most evil killers of civilians of all time? or are people's views of hitler as evil maybe just a little too exacerbated by the fickle media of our time... leading to the possibility that maybe you're making a exaggerated claim about bush as well? no?
seems to me that those who criticize our current president like to go too far... all the way to the level of hate... and therefore compare him to the most evil dictator anyone can think of in recent history; hitler. it's just that i've heard this comparison more than once. my cousin went on and on about it actually... so enlighten me, i'm curious.
i think, overall, that bush essentially lacks charisma, which hitler had in spades. hitler also came along in a time when his speeches could reach the masses for basically the first time in history. radio and amplified arenas allowed him to sway millions like none had done before. bush can do no better than fumble through a speech... therefore, many can't believe what he says or trust him. but make the comparison to hitler? really? are you sure?
wouldn't it be cool if the "charismatic" attribute for a leader in Civ could somehow have an effect on populace in general, or after radio is researched?.. either good or bad. sorry, well...? just a thought.
hitler had ample intelligence, but no wisdom
hitler had ample charisma, but no compassion
hitler had ample self justification, but zero humility
hitler had ample confidence, but no trust
hitler had ample ambition, but no humanity
his people asked for security in a crime riddled country, and they got the gestapo. his people admonished him as their leader and followed his third reich into the depths of all that has been proven abhorent about government, human rights, law, mass murder and war, etc.
his push for inventions? and whether or not it adds to our lives today? i could care less.
on a civ note, i don't blame anyone for feeling disgust for hitler's inclusion as one of the leaderheads in the game, but others were, or at least could be argued as being worse than hitler. Joseph Stalin, for example... killed millions more than hitler. warmongers like - ghengis kahn, Alexander the Great, Napolean, Julius Ceasar, just to name a few, but we don't really care about them... heck, how can you fault a guy who's name has "the great" with no last name? haha... thanks to him, military leaders in rome and all over the world aspired to conquer (that involves a lot of killing) as he did.
i agree it would be very very cool to have hitler as a leaderhead in civ, but mabye as the leader of "the third reich", not germany, with a great propensity for espionage and war and general mischeif... and then play the game to beat him. it'd be fun, but also, just a game. a very, very fun game!
omarshaheen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Messages
- 82
Bush and Hitler both had the nerve to use their armies against other nations. Bush actually is much worse than Hitler in this respect because he has very poor post war-planning, where as Germany during WWII had at least a management system to control territories that came under its control. You didn't see civil wars, or looting and the breakdown of basic security in territories occupied by the Germans (ex. France, Poland,...) this can not be said for the current American administration. Where ever Bush goes with his troops, security, order, and the most basic of civilian infrastructure is crippled.
On the other hand, the American Administration under bush has highly talented propagandists under its disposal capable of presenting fabricated evidence it in front of institutions such as the UN, and they can get away with it even when it turns out to be groundless, and 100s of thousands if not millions of people lose their lives as a result of their scams, and to be able to claim that they’re doing it for the free world and manage to find someone to cheer about it is just one more indication of how powerful they are in controlling the message. Actually, Bush is powerful enough to name which states are rouge and have the most of the world blockade the governments that falls out of favor with him, on claims that they’re not democratic when they could indeed have a democratic mandate. He supports dictators from all over the world provided that they adopt his foreign policies, and neither local nor international media can challenge his dealings.
Hitler on the other hand was not as bold in using propaganda, at least not on the international stage, and he wasn't the one to declare war on Britain and France, it was the other way round. Most importantly the majority of his wars were against other giant military powers like Britain, USSR, USA, and France. Many smaller countries simply join him without a fight.
The actions made by the leaders of the Allies and the Axis were horrible, and I would not classify the president who ordered the use of the first atomic weapon against civilians as a saint, he is just as bad as Hitler and Stalin. The use of carpet bombings were also very devastating, and both sides used them against large population concentrations which makes me wonder if you can ever find a warring party that has nothing on its conscience, maybe unless it was crushed like Iraq.
Let’s just play the game, and wish that evil leaders never make it to the seat of power…
On the other hand, the American Administration under bush has highly talented propagandists under its disposal capable of presenting fabricated evidence it in front of institutions such as the UN, and they can get away with it even when it turns out to be groundless, and 100s of thousands if not millions of people lose their lives as a result of their scams, and to be able to claim that they’re doing it for the free world and manage to find someone to cheer about it is just one more indication of how powerful they are in controlling the message. Actually, Bush is powerful enough to name which states are rouge and have the most of the world blockade the governments that falls out of favor with him, on claims that they’re not democratic when they could indeed have a democratic mandate. He supports dictators from all over the world provided that they adopt his foreign policies, and neither local nor international media can challenge his dealings.
Hitler on the other hand was not as bold in using propaganda, at least not on the international stage, and he wasn't the one to declare war on Britain and France, it was the other way round. Most importantly the majority of his wars were against other giant military powers like Britain, USSR, USA, and France. Many smaller countries simply join him without a fight.
The actions made by the leaders of the Allies and the Axis were horrible, and I would not classify the president who ordered the use of the first atomic weapon against civilians as a saint, he is just as bad as Hitler and Stalin. The use of carpet bombings were also very devastating, and both sides used them against large population concentrations which makes me wonder if you can ever find a warring party that has nothing on its conscience, maybe unless it was crushed like Iraq.
Let’s just play the game, and wish that evil leaders never make it to the seat of power…
thecivdude
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2007
- Messages
- 45
i could compose a list of leaders who "had the nerve to use their armies against other nations" going back 5,000 years. but i'm not going to enter into a debate with you about that...
but, i will say that your entire post here is completely odd, bizarre and curious to say the least... and i can't help but wonder where you're getting your information on all this? i mean, you must somehow be priveledged to some source of information that the most unpresidently free press organizations of the world (of all time) do not have... you see, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, any... any free press organization would LOVE, LOVE to have evidence for what you claim is true. they would have the biggest story since, i don't know when... not to mention opposing political parties who would love, even more, to expose what you're claiming.
apparently, they, all of them, are not just simply being duped by the supposed bush propoganda machine... nay, bush and his administration is somehow smarter, and one step ahead of (over the course of 5 years of scrutiny) all free press agencies in the world, all other political opponents, the UN and all other coalition leaders or opposing leaders in the world as well. wow, that's impressive, if i understand you correctly...
but it's obvious your information is... whatever you want it to be... when you say hitler wasn't as bold with regards to propoganda (he was one of the world's most aggressive propogandists- history shows it), or that he had some sort of sense to "create stability and avoid civil war in areas he conquered".
wait... w- what?
so, britain and france were "bold enough to use their armies" against the people of germany, since they declared war on hitler, right? (by the same logic you're using). not exactly, they declared war because hitler was the aggressor who violated agreements for non-aggression going back to WW #1... don't twist it around to be whatever you want it to be. he used the blitzkreig multiple times in a form of warfare that "smaller countries" had never seen and were not prepared for. thus, they surrendered... they did not simply "join him without a fight" and willingly come under hitler's control with a much more effective "management system that prevented civil war" than the bush administration... that's wild man... wild.
also, i want to understand what you mean by "crushed like iraq". iraq fell with a relatively low number of casualties, in a very short period of time. the fighting thereafter has caused the majority of casualties because of uprisings from islamic factions. there have been civilian casualties, but the majority of the thousands you speak of are killed between sunni and shiite, and al quida, etc, etc... iraqis (and i should say islamists from all over the region) are suicide bombing mosques and religious gatherings, among other places, at will. it's like baptists and methodists and presbitarians all deciding that the other is "unholy" and must be converted or... drum roll please... killed like the infadel dogs they are... that's pretty much what the bush administration was woefully unprepared for.
EDIT: i have to make one edit here - you say "100s of thousands if not millions of people lose their lives as a result of their scams"... wow, really? millions? thousands of people have died in iraq, but not all at the hands of the bush administration as i point out above, but even still, it hasn't even reached a hundred thousand and you're claiming millions... it's stuff like that where i would like to know where you're getting your info...
the "bush invasion force" you speak of, is attempting to secure the region, with limited success, not repeatedly bomb or carpet bomb as you say, or establish concentration camps and exterminate ethnicities or go around and kill civilians willy-nilly (like hitler and the gestapo were famous for). the media from all around the world is there, covering the war, and if the "bush invasion force" was bombing areas filled with civilians or purposefully attempting to exterminate people the way hitler did, U.S. and foreign media would be ALL OVER IT. ther are civilians who are accidentally killed, or militants who hide among civilians, but the "bush invasion machine" is not deliberately targeting civilians...
in fact, you say it's all the bush administration, but it is a coalition of something like 75 nations... so there must be 75 more hitlers out there "crushing iraq" at will and killing civilians at will, as you say.
i just want to know where you get your information, or if this is simply something you "believe" is going on. i think it's the latter. perhaps you've seen too many movies?
in the end, i don't mean to put you down personally. there is just this wave of people out there who believe the nonsense that you've posted here. i'm just asking someone such as yourself, to stop running away with your ideas about what's going on here, and start looking at things objectively. take a deep breathe and don't start twisting facts and history around.
my cousin had a different take, claiming bush is a fascist, so i thought that's where you were going with it. he's not a fascist either...
i, by the way, am not a big fan of the bush administration. i'm just trying to keep what's within the parameters of reasonable, possible, and historically true apart from this odd belief that the boogey man is in charge or that bush is comparable or somehow worse than hitler... let's get serious here, really. it's an interesting debate for me at the least.
ok, well, this has gotten away from civ, the game, and i didn't mean such a lengthy reply, but well, there it is. i love the game, and i agree, let's just play the game... i think you're a really smart person, worthy of any intellectual debate or independent conclusions... but don't get carried away. look for the truth, keep it within reason... and remember that, in the country you live in, you have the right to speak out. most people around the world do not. some fight to preserve that right, whether they go about it the right way, or make all the right decisions along the way, is another story.
peace
omarshaheen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Messages
- 82
My sources of information may be a little richer than you think, not just in terms of news media, I have also traveled to Jordan three times after the Iraq war started, and I have seen and heard from Iraqis who belong to about a million refugees currently living in Jordan. I really don't know where to begin, but if there's anybody who's living in a shell its not me! (trust me on this) I get a very broad perspective on news, and I really do my homework to establish fact from fiction/propaganda.
Don't let yourself get brain washed; remember that each and every media outlet has its own agenda from Fox to CNN, CBS, as well as Al-Jazeera. Its not easy to get a touch of whats really happening through news channels, you have to listen to the people making the news or at least get their perspective somehow, otherwise, youll get lost in claims and counter claims by different media outlets (like Fox vs Al-Jazeeraintl).
Hope I didn't get you down with my critic; I just want you to invest more time before taking something for a fact. Anyway, here are just a couple of corrections, or if you like, just examples of what you need to re-examine:
- Iraq lost at least 5% of its population as a result of the invasion (directly or indirectly)
- Don't let the numbers fool you, these would represent less than a third of the countries in the world, may I ask whatever happened to the rest? if its all for a free and secure world why didn't they get on board? Truth is, it's all about mutual benefits.
I love this game and the debates it spawns, and I consider differences in opinion enriching, even if people do not see eye-to-eye at the end, however, I actually intentionally avoided commenting on many of your remarks because it seems obvious that this debate can drag on with little historical value to this thread going further. So lets just leave it there... after all, the post is not about Bush
Just to end our debate with a quote from something we do agree on
Well said
, it reminds me of a quote for Benjamin Franklin:"People who give up their freedom in pursuit of security deserve neither freedom nor security"
thecivdude
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2007
- Messages
- 45
well, i'm not claiming that i know it all, nor do i believe you should trust everything you see on tv, but suffice to say that my main point is that bush can't be compared to hitler, on any level.
i have friends from the middle east as well, and they are very good, very beloved friends. i'd say there are many refugees, not because of "bush bombings", but because of locally insecure areas.
so you're saying that 5% of the population in iraq were killed in the initial invasion (directly or indirectly - not sure what you mean by that). well, let's see, there are 27,000,000 people in iraq. that would be 1.35 million people who would have supposedly been killed in the invasion... when civilians were not targeted, and military prisoners were arrested, not executed. there's no way 1.35 million could be killed unnoticed. i wonder if al-jazeera reported something like this?
now, don't get me wrong, 10s of thousands of people have most regretably lost their lives in iraq, my point was, most of that is due to internal attacks and bombings, not as deliberate targets of the US military on civilian populations. that's all i'm saying. unfortunately, it is iraqi citizens who are in the way when iraqi insergents attack crowded areas. there is no one from the US military going around saying, "there's an iraqi! kill him!" actually, i wonder how many more iraqis would be dying if the US military just left back in 2005 and let the "civil war" play itself out.... and allow whatever hard-line islamic dictator come to power... and then weild his power by killing many, many more. for example, if a sunni cleric came to power, then declared a sunni-islamic republic - making shiites and kurds the natural enemy. many, many people would die.
as long as we're on percentages of deaths in iraq, let's talk about saddam hussein. actually, i won't say anything, this is from wikipedia.org:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam's_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_shredder
and this is from amnesty international:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Inde...f=COUNTRIESIRAQ?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ
the sad truth is that the US government supported saddam in the war against iran because iran kidnapped american citizens (among other things), and therefore, iran was an enemy to the US... well, saddam turned around and used weapons and technology that was given him to kill his own people and invade neighboring countries. (had the nerve to invade as you say)
still, in the 1990 gulf war invasion, the US government did not remove him from power in an attempt to control the region. in fact, the US government put up no-fly zones in the north AND south of iraq to protect the citizens of iraq from saddam himself. to protect them from being bombed, gassed, etc... imagine, ponder that for a moment.
saddam's regime was one of the few governments that expressed satisfaction over what happened on 9-11. saddam pledged to increase the amount of money given to terrorists' familes who who die as suicide bombers to $25,000 instead of $10,000.
this is all documented. all of it. i say saddam was far more similar to hitler than bush could ever be. and yet, amazingly enough, who is viewed as the evil, lying, murdering bad guy by many, many people? it's very interesting to me -- hence this debate.
bush's arrogant tactics are his problem. putting faces on playing cards and calling out "evil regimes" etc... there's no doubt the guy makes mistakes. again, i am not trying to defend bush on all points, i DO NOT support all he has done, but, finally, the ultimate point is, he is not hitler-reincarnate.
and yes, i am always looking for more information rather than believing whatever is on tv. that's why i was asking you where you got your information. i'd like to know more about it is the only thing.
and it was sir francis bacon who was quoted "knowledge is power"
ok, i'm going back to the game
i have friends from the middle east as well, and they are very good, very beloved friends. i'd say there are many refugees, not because of "bush bombings", but because of locally insecure areas.
so you're saying that 5% of the population in iraq were killed in the initial invasion (directly or indirectly - not sure what you mean by that). well, let's see, there are 27,000,000 people in iraq. that would be 1.35 million people who would have supposedly been killed in the invasion... when civilians were not targeted, and military prisoners were arrested, not executed. there's no way 1.35 million could be killed unnoticed. i wonder if al-jazeera reported something like this?
now, don't get me wrong, 10s of thousands of people have most regretably lost their lives in iraq, my point was, most of that is due to internal attacks and bombings, not as deliberate targets of the US military on civilian populations. that's all i'm saying. unfortunately, it is iraqi citizens who are in the way when iraqi insergents attack crowded areas. there is no one from the US military going around saying, "there's an iraqi! kill him!" actually, i wonder how many more iraqis would be dying if the US military just left back in 2005 and let the "civil war" play itself out.... and allow whatever hard-line islamic dictator come to power... and then weild his power by killing many, many more. for example, if a sunni cleric came to power, then declared a sunni-islamic republic - making shiites and kurds the natural enemy. many, many people would die.
as long as we're on percentages of deaths in iraq, let's talk about saddam hussein. actually, i won't say anything, this is from wikipedia.org:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam's_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_shredder
and this is from amnesty international:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Inde...f=COUNTRIESIRAQ?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ
the sad truth is that the US government supported saddam in the war against iran because iran kidnapped american citizens (among other things), and therefore, iran was an enemy to the US... well, saddam turned around and used weapons and technology that was given him to kill his own people and invade neighboring countries. (had the nerve to invade as you say)
still, in the 1990 gulf war invasion, the US government did not remove him from power in an attempt to control the region. in fact, the US government put up no-fly zones in the north AND south of iraq to protect the citizens of iraq from saddam himself. to protect them from being bombed, gassed, etc... imagine, ponder that for a moment.
saddam's regime was one of the few governments that expressed satisfaction over what happened on 9-11. saddam pledged to increase the amount of money given to terrorists' familes who who die as suicide bombers to $25,000 instead of $10,000.
this is all documented. all of it. i say saddam was far more similar to hitler than bush could ever be. and yet, amazingly enough, who is viewed as the evil, lying, murdering bad guy by many, many people? it's very interesting to me -- hence this debate.
bush's arrogant tactics are his problem. putting faces on playing cards and calling out "evil regimes" etc... there's no doubt the guy makes mistakes. again, i am not trying to defend bush on all points, i DO NOT support all he has done, but, finally, the ultimate point is, he is not hitler-reincarnate.
and yes, i am always looking for more information rather than believing whatever is on tv. that's why i was asking you where you got your information. i'd like to know more about it is the only thing.
and it was sir francis bacon who was quoted "knowledge is power"
ok, i'm going back to the game
CyberDiablo
Chieftain
Hmmm... looks nice. Downloadin'.
Flintlock1415
Emperor
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
Undertaker31
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1
i hope this work... im a bit tired to install and reinstall civ 
i know iam a HUGE noob... its why i hope it works, if yes , you are the best , btw to those jerks who are complaining about US that like to play with mass murder... well stalin , and mao zedong was not different so .. if u dont like why u are here to download the file ?buzz off , CHEERS
i know iam a HUGE noob... its why i hope it works, if yes , you are the best , btw to those jerks who are complaining about US that like to play with mass murder... well stalin , and mao zedong was not different so .. if u dont like why u are here to download the file ?buzz off , CHEERS 
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Just follow a tutorial. It's rather easy.
The Capo
godless Heathen
I am going to make a new Hitler. Just give me some time and you'll have a really good Hitler for you. If you want to see other leaderheads I have made I have a link to my gallery in my signature.
A model is already done, and he's excellent. Check out The Capo's leaderhead thread for more details and a download. Note though that it isn't a "complete mod," since it is only the leaderhead and no XML, though there are any number of mods you could lift that from.
Similar threads
