Question for Germans: How do you view Adolf Hitler?

[gamedude107]

hitler was the first to realise you gotta get em young!
(as in using schools to brainwash ppl into believing stuff from very young)

 

[gamedude107]

and btw bush cheated

 

[Antilogic]

On the US Founding Fathers:
To add a little to what was mentioned earlier, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both held slaves during their lifetimes, but freed them after their presidencies had expired, decades before the abolition of slavery was forced upon Virginia. That should figure somewhat into your calculations of their characters and whether or not you consider them hypocrites. Also, take a look at the unedited version of the Declaration of Independence that Jefferson originally wrote: it ends in a scathing condemnation of the British King as responsible for the evils of the slave trade. Also, George Washington is the first president, or the "President of the United States of America". The technicality referred to earlier was the fact that before the modern US constitution was written, the head of the Articles of Confederation government was also called a president, but that title was "President of the United States in Congress Assembled". This person was more akin to a Speaker of the House--he was the head of the legislature of the Articles of Confederation government, and had little to no executive power (largely, because the AoC had no executive power). So, on a perverse technicality, Washington was the first "President of the United States of America" but not ever the "President of the United States in Congress Assembled".


On Hitler, and my Philosophy of Leader Selection in General:
My opinion is no, because I believe there are far too many WW2 leaders already. The only reasonable argument for the inclusion of Hitler is the lack of a fascist leader in the game. However, in the grand scale of human history dating back thousands of years, WW2 is but a mere speck, an end result, a symptom, of what has happened centuries before. The people who set the events in motion to cause the current state of the world started so long before Hitler arrived on the scene: to give you an idea of what I mean, I would include William of Normandy and Otto I or Barbarossa before even thinking of Hitler. Having Roosevelt, Churchill, De Gaulle, and Stalin (4!) leaders from WW2 already is a crying shame.

A modern leader that may deserve a slot is Meiji for Japan, but even then the reason is somewhat for gameplay: having a Japan that interacts with its opponents instead of sitting on the outskirts waiting to be conquered. He really deserves De Gaulle's place (and traits) in the game.


On Hitler and Morality:
I deem Hitler as evil. I really shouldn't have to defend this position, but I claim he is as evil as Mao, Stalin, Leopold II (it seems like I had to bring him up first!), and all the other mass murders I have learned of. I follow the simple doctrine that intentionally committing genocide is evil, and anyone who persecutes such a policy is evil as well. It's that simple.

 

[Adler17]

I seldomly look around here as I am not very content with civ IV. Anyway there is one simple reason why Hitler should be no German leader: He was Austrian! A fact never said before here. Hitler was an evil and crazy man. He also was never elected by the German population. Despite his attempts in even the last semi democratic election. He then murdered, treachered, robbed, started a genocide and so on (starting a war was not a crime then and it is very questionable to accept the ruling of the Nürnberg Trials in that regard). That's why he should not be in. Does that mean Stalin and Mao out, too? Yes! Absolutely. They are scum like Hitler.
Hitler was a crazy racist who could enforce his "dreams". At the very beginning he might have never thought about that. And if he died suddenly in 1940 shortly after the fall of France we would not talk about this and Hitler would be in. There would be no Holocaust and no lost war (many thanks also to him because of this). People would think he was a good leader as he won the war with Poland and France revenging for Versailles. His flaws would be overlooked or someone else blamed. Indeed in the Reichskristallnacht of 1938 was a progrom made by Goebbels (Hitler was indeed furious and Goebbels needed years to recover political, the SA even never). So his crimes would be seen as only small in contrast of "his" deeds.
Yes, most of that what Hitler made in the first years was done by others infact. He only gained the price. The rearmament, getting rid about the reparations and so on were already planned by others. The Autobahnen, too. To say he was stupid is another thing. I think with his way to power he already showed that he was intelligent. But he was also crazy and should have been better sent into a booby hatch in 1923 than into prison. Anyway He had some plans to work. When he had sufficient time he could use his own knowledge about the things going on. Yes, he had tought himself lessons about strategy and warfare among others. He made the first plan to take Eben Emael. A plan, which was of course revisited by others. But his successes gave him the believe he was the greatest general of all times (Gröfaz= Größter Feldherr aller Zeiten. (Better would be Größter Fatzke (arrogant as*) aller Zeiten). Then he changed orders that lead to the end.
That is just another reason why Hitler should not be in.

Adler

 

[IAM]

I'm not a German national. My background is partially German and I lived in Frankfurt for a while when there was still an East and West Germany.

I don't agree with the entirety of the NAZI Hitler regime. For instance I believe that socialism has gone to far in Germany. To many coddled workers. But overall Hitler was the greatest leader of the 20th century. I can only hope that we soon see another great leader that is willing to put National interest ahead of personal political gain. If anything Hitler didn't go far enough. That was his weakness.

"When I come back no more Mr. Nice Guy." Adolf Hitler

 

[wicshade]

you are going to get this forum closed, or maybe that was your plan,

but i will agree with you about socialism, i think that socialism is hurting the European economy to an extent

 

[IAM]

Why should expression a genuine opinion get the thread closed. If millions and millions didn't agree with me then Hitler, Stalin, Khan, Pol Pot etc. could have never come to power.

"When I come back no more Mr. Nice Guy." Adolf Hitler

 

[wicshade]

it is not your opinion but the flame war that will follow, the subject of Hitler always ends badly on these forums, and all of them get closed by the moderators sooner or later

 

[IAM]

If we (people in general) ban speech to enforce our own agenda then what will be the end result?

"When I come back no more Mr. Nice Guy." Adolf Hitler

 

[wicshade]

In the forum rules it specificaly says that you do not have a freedom of speech, what basicaly means that they can kick you off when they want for you saying something they did not approve of, some of the older thread had gone off into the deep end in the past. I never knew there was so much contraversey over Hitler until I joined civ fanatics.

personaly i don't care to much on Hitler and the morality of what happend, it is pretty cut and dry, it happend, you will never change a thing arguing how wrong it was or was not, but i am very intrested in how Nazi Germany built such a powerful empire in such a short time after the Versiales treaty. The Japanese had some impressive accomplishments as well.

 

[magicalsushi]

As for Fascism = Evil, I'm not so sure. Yes a lot of times evil stuff happens, but surely this is because of the person in charge being evil, not because of the system. If someone like 'Jesus' or 'Buddha' was a dictator, would people be so quick to say all dictators are evil?

Okay, suppose we have a "good" person in charge. What exactly does it mean to be a Fascist leader? It means everyone else in the country must obey you. So, that's nice for the person who's leader. Not so nice for everyone else. Sure, Jesus might not abuse his power if he were leader, but the fact would still remain that *all* of the political power in the country would be in his hands, regardless of whether someone else had better ideas or was liked more by the people. Also, not everyone is going to agree with the leader of a Fascist country, no matter how nice they might be. Finally, because there are many people who will not tolerate Fascism (for the reasons I mentioned above), there will always be a core of people who challenge a Fascist government. If the government accepts that their challenge is legitmate and allows the public to choose between the two factions, you've essentially got Representation instead of Fascism; if the government doesn't accept the challenge as legitimate, it will have to supress. No matter how nice the government might want to be, things will turn nasty at that point.

Fascism doesn't work. Not if you want any control over your own life, anyway. Admittedly, many people don't. Having to be responsible for your own actions is too much like hard work.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Actually this is a question for just anybody really but I would really like to hear from Germans as well. I just want to know how different culture and people view history. Well first off Hitler was a bad person but at the same time he could be looked at as a talented guy. He loved to paint, he wrote a book that sold millions being the best seller only next to the Bible. He was against communism but the only thing that made him bad was his hatred towards Jews. And after watching a documentary about the unpublished squeal to Mein Kampf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweites_Buch) it stated that Hitler never intended to conquer the world and destroy everything.

Hitler stated that his number one goal was to expand the land of Germany so the farmers could have more land. So his plan was to have the British and Italy team up with Germany and take out Russia the communist. He said Britain would keep her colonies, Italy can have the Mediterranean and Germany would have eastern Europe and Russia.

The only reasons he wanted this land was so that German farmers could expand and grow their crops. He believed his duty was to help save the Aryan race. So from what you heard now and have heard before what is your perspective of Hitler? I am just curious about these kinds of things. Hitler was a bad man indeed but when I watched the documentary on the History channel they seemed to show a lighter side of Hitler. So without further adieu what is your view of Hitler?

No person is completely evil or completely good. He may have had some good qualities, from what I understand from people that knew him Ted Bundy was a great guy when he wasn't murdering girls as well.

Now if Hitler had no good qualities and no talents he would not have been a danger, he would have just been another cranky crackpot the likes of which you seeing posting on many rightwing sites on the web today. It was because he had some charm, some talent and "good" qualities that he became a danger to humanity.

They were the pleasant tasting pill casing enclosing the poison.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Fine, here I go.


The NSDAP won 44% of the vote the year they rose to power, not through democratic proceedings, either, but from domestic terrorism

Any Germans that could vote in 1933, would be around 95 years old or above, so no, the Germans that blame Hitler are mostly dead, you can't blame their children, they did nothing wrong.

The German people that squealed on their neighbors, that destroyed Jewish shops and that ignored the signs of Death Camps (Which weren't in Germany, only in Poland, so very little Germans that weren't members of the party were actually aware of this happening) were facing death or forced labor if they acted differently, so I'm afraid you can't blame them for acting out of constant irrational fear of almost certain death.

Hitler was evil, I'm not going to argue with you about the philosophical intricacies of purity or evil, but the man was certainly motivated by all the wrong things.

Yes, it is possible to justify his actions on an international scale, but the justifications are weak, and in the end nobody can say that the world wouldn't have been better off without Hitler.

Hitler never forcibly took Russia, he never got far enough to be able to claim that he conquered Russia, but rather his army got stuck in a long stalemate with the red army, until they ran out of munitions and supplies and eventually were forced to surrender and retreat.

Hitler wasn't out to pick a fight with Britain when he conquered Poland, he was out to conquer Poland when he conquered Poland, rather England was the fight picker, not that they didn't pick a just fight, but in a way "Britain started it".

Hitler never exterminated Slavs, even though they were an inferior race, according to Hitler's race theory, Slavs were meant to serve the Aryan race, while the Jews were the ones that had to be destroyed.

As I recall there were a couple of camps in Germany proper: Dachau and Belsen.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Is that not what the early founding fathers of America did? Did they not consider Africans and Natives Americans and inferior race? Did they not kill hundreds of thousands of Native Americans just to expand their boarders?

Whoa nelly! Before you start on the moral relativism of false comparisons you had better really THINK.

Slavery is it' own separate shame.

And the early Americans did not purposefully and with malice aforethought set out to systematically exterminate the Indians just because they were Indians.

And BTW it is WORSE not worst in the context you are using the word.

 

[Mano3]

Hitler was evil, I'm not going to argue with you about the philosophical intricacies of purity or evil, but the man was certainly motivated by all the wrong things.

When one looks back at history, we find so many examples of leaders who, in their own minds, felt that their heart was in the right place for their country, but their motivations and egos eventually took over and led them and their nations down a very wrong path.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Stalin was bad, but not as bad as you make him out to be. Yes, he was a dictator and did all those bad things dictators do, but I must point out a single thing: he did not murder millions.

snip

Stalin was evil and insane, but he is not personally responsible for the deaths of millions.

You might want to talk to the Ukrainians.....

He starved something on the order of 15 million of them to death. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ukra.html

 

[Bluewolf]

If he put his talents to good use (not his lil postcard business), and stopped expansion in Poland and a few of the Balcan countries, Germany would probably have become the 3rd super power in the cold war...

 

[Swaish]

Lol are you telling me Hitler had no idea that camps like Auschwitz existed? That a well thought out Jewish identification system, German underground factories which were made with prisoner of war and Jewish blood, and a well thought out process to annihilate an entire race just sprang up from misinterpreted orders? I'm not so naive as to believe that bs, maybe some historians believe that crap, but Hitler must have known and likely either signed the order himself or delegated the task to another person. Other people have also commented on the US's handling of the natives and blacks. That argument is absurd, such behavior is deplorable, all people are equal, but its a far cry from a thought out extermination. Finally fascism may not be an evil system of government, but eventually if you give total power to one man it will corrupt them.

Ultimately what it comes down to is do Germans want to be represented by Hitler? If no then don't put him in.

I think you should re-read what I said. I didn't say Hitler didn't know about it, I said basically that we don't know how much Hitler knew.
Do you honestly think George W Bush knows everything about what every department of government is doing? The chain of command is sort of like a pyramid, and not everything goes directly to the top, and then directly back to the bottom - it would be chaotic and very slow to run a country like this.
I believe many Germans said of the evil at the time "If only the furher knew", meaning that a lot of people didn't think/know the furher knew, and that these people were acting not exactly as Hitler wished. We don't know for sure, and probably never will, but it's safe to say that due to propaganda etc Hitler at the time wasn't blaimed for EVERYTHING by the german people.
I suggest looking up the concept of 'Furher Will'.
And if you find these papers that you say Hitler signed, please tell the world.

 

[Swaish]

If he put his talents to good use (not his lil postcard business), and stopped expansion in Poland and a few of the Balcan countries, Germany would probably have become the 3rd super power in the cold war...

I doubt there would have been a Cold War. The Cold War was the aftermath of WW2. Plus the state that the US and USSR existed in after WW2 would have been totally different if there was in WW2 (ie not as rich (US getting rich from trading with nazi's and lend-lease with the British), and technology not as advanced (Russians and US stole much German tech and scientists after the war)).

More likely there would have been 1 main power (Germany) and the others like US, USSR, British Empire, etc would be slightly inferior interms of power relations. I believe there would have been a multipolar-system, with a balance of power with US and UK allied, and maybe Russia with someone else.... I don't know tbh, but I imagine maybe 3 'alliances', or indeed Germany and someone (such as Italy and/or unlikely Russia etc) against everyone else.
I doubt the next war would have been 'cold'.

 

[Bluewolf]

Also consider Hitler had power. He led a country. Just think if a KKK member, led the US or Canada... there'd be resources to cause genocide (although I think he'd be overthrown but this is an example) But they are more considered uneducated, than evil.

So if Hitler stayed with his artistic job, he wouldn't be "evil" even if he was antisemitism.