Question for Germans: How do you view Adolf Hitler?

[vicawoo]

Bush won the popular vote, unlike in the first election. Obviously a lot of people supported him, for whatever reasons, and are therefore responsible for it.

I argued a lot with people about the election, but people adamantly supported him, and falsely attacked Kerry. Now his approval rating is low, but you can't just blame everything on the person who got elected. For some reason, I hear a lot about Bush's mistakes, but there are no stories about people being contrite for electing him.

in contrast, the germans are morally responsible for letting the nazis go through with what they do. Utter hypocrisy.

 

[wicshade]

if the germans are going to be responsible for that then all of europe should share some of the burden of the blame, Hitler' war machine did not just full from the sky, it took him years to build it, and if im not mistaken after WWI germany had sacntions in place that were supposed to only restrict thier army. The western nations of europe should't of allowed Hitler to build a massive army.

more so im certain that if the american voters of 8 years ago could have forseen Bush's actions today, he never would have been elected, likewise the German people of the 1930's did not know that Hitler would build death camps, Many Germans did not even find out about the death camps until after the war.

 

[MangleMeElmo]

Bush won the popular vote, unlike in the first election. Obviously a lot of people supported him, for whatever reasons, and are therefore responsible for it.

I argued a lot with people about the election, but people adamantly supported him, and falsely attacked Kerry. Now his approval rating is low, but you can't just blame everything on the person who got elected. For some reason, I hear a lot about Bush's mistakes, but there are no stories about people being contrite for electing him.

in contrast, the germans are morally responsible for letting the nazis go through with what they do. Utter hypocrisy.

I don't think you can be so judgmental of America for re-electing Bush. The last two elections have been a case of 'pick your poison.' Kerry only looks smart next to Bush because Bush is a moron, not because Kerry is actually a competent leader. In fact, there are no more leaders here in the United States, only spineless politicians who pander to special-interest groups while the American people are ignored.

As for Germans, I don't blame them either. Hitler restored their livelihood and their national pride, they worshipped him as a god because he gave them back everything they had lost in WWI. Because of this, they turned a blind eye to the evil acts he was committing. We can't fix the past, but I'm sure Germans regret what happened and will remain vigilant so that they are never ruled by a tyrant again. We know now that the best way to enslave people is to provide for all of their needs.

Fortunately for America, we don't have a tyrant, just an imbecile.

 

[vicawoo]

if the germans are going to be responsible for that then all of europe should share some of the burden of the blame, Hitler' war machine did not just full from the sky, it took him years to build it, and if im not mistaken after WWI germany had sacntions in place that were supposed to only restrict thier army. The western nations of europe should't of allowed Hitler to build a massive army.

more so im certain that if the american voters of 8 years ago could have forseen Bush's actions today, he never would have been elected, likewise the German people of the 1930's did not know that Hitler would build death camps, Many Germans did not even find out about the death camps until after the war.

So for the first election, people actually could say Gore should have won, and Bush even with his results, did not win the popular vote. But the second election, people did foresee what was going to happen (disaster in Iraq, abuse, pitfalls of a loyalty based administration), it's just that people dismissed it, called them anti-american and so on. But the thing was, the voters believed them enough to elect Bush.

We live in a democracy in the US, and each person is responsible for what happens in the country. So while it's nice to have a scapegoat, there's a difference between an extremist advocating wars and a country following through on that, and that is, whether voters support that leader.

And Kerry wasn't an idiot, that's of the propaganda that voters fell for. If people looked at his policy instead of his ads, it was actually reasonable. People didn't vote for him for emotional reasons, like the whole flip-flopping nonsense, not because of his competence. And I'm originally from Massachusetts, where he is senator, so I have to say a lot of his right-wing friendliness came because he had to win over a lot of unreasonable people.

Seriously, name one of his truly incompetent policies, particularly where he contrasted with Bush. There's Iraq (loss for bush), health care reform (loss for bush), north korea (loss for bush), economics (haven't looked at the job market recently, but oil prices are horrible), education (nclb is underfunded and giving schools hell)... And there's that whole US has lost its credibility and is probably on the decline now, probably for good. And there's the incredible amount of divisiveness with which Karl Rove ran the campaign.

The only good thing I can say is that I'd say Bush has actual become much more reasonable, even though he's now getting flak for it. On one hand, I hope things go better, on the other, I kind of hope that if people make mistakes (including voters), they are held accountable and have to live with the consequences.

And I don't believe the special interest group, politicians are bad, voters are the victims rhetoric. It's just that a lot of people would rather hear something snazzy than something dull but well thought out. Look at the news headlines, you see a lot of junk because that's what sells and that's what people want. Ok, i'm ending my tirade.

 

[MangleMeElmo]

Whatever. It's naive to think that a democracy can't become a dictatorship of sorts. There is an elite power structure in the United States. The common voter means nothing because million-dollar special interest organizations are the ones funding the campaigns, and the politicians pander to them so that they can get money. The system is broken, and neither party can be trusted. The politicians and the media thrive on people's fear and ignorance for viewers and votes. They make sure we stay divided into 'liberal' and 'conservative' so that we will be too busy fighting each other over meaningless ideologies instead of focusing on what's best for the country.

We're no better than the Germans who put Hitler in power. The elitists in the United States rely on the same kind of fear and ignorance as Hitler did, to make us oppose each other while they run off with our hard-earned money. We're really not so different from Nazi Germany, except that we're ruled by a lot of vampires instead of one bloodthirsty monster.

 

[wicshade]

i don't think it realy matters if i go offtopic on this forum, there are already enough hitler threads as there are,

I think that every one is aware of the likelyhood that voter fraud may have been commited in the 2000 election, and if 2000 then likely also 04.

i never said Kerry was an idiot, but i do think the demacratice party does not know how to play politics. It is more then obvious to me that the plans and ideas that democratic canodites have seem to be good, but the Republicans use better tactics, that appeal to the average middle class 2 kids and a morgatge. Basicly democrats look like a pack of numbers and figures, while republicans make them selves look more like a person who cares about you.

also all of America is going to have to pay for bush's actions, this war is going to end up costing trillions, but the people who paid most are ones that did not even vote the 600 thosand dead iraquis, 2 million refuges, and all of are soldiers that were enlisted or enlisted after the war started. Unfortaintely this war was started by lies and propaganda, while i think certain people in are executive branch have way to much to gain. *cough haliburton*.

P.s i just realized that most of the people that post in this thread have not been with civ fanatics for a very long time, i would imagine that most of the community is tired of Hitler debates.

 

[A1CBOZ]

I have an idea. Instead of continuing to beat the "Hitler Dead Horse", and since this is a videogame forum not a political discussion, let's just let this thread die...

 

[Onagan]

Although I'm not a German (but lived 5 miles from their border), here are mine thoughts about him and the Civilization-series

It's not necessary to include him in the series, there are more German leader who fit very well in the series. But he isn't "not-done" in my view.

As many have mentioned Stalin was evil also, but don't forget Mao Zedong, Churchill, Napoleon they are evil too. And they are in. I get sick by the idea of D-day, sending thousands of young men in to a certain death while Nazi-Germany already where losing the war, only to stop the total victory of the USSR. They landed, not because the Germans, but because the Russians. That idea is disgusting to me.

Napoleon is in less then 200 years after his wars, changed from a bad guy into a admired Warlord. I'm wondering how people will look at Hitler in the 22th century.

And those people are in the series. And one thing is a fact, Hitler changed the world, just like Charlemange, Napoleon, etc.

I don't need him in Civ, but I wouldn't have no problems with the idea. But I think it's too short-sighted to have von Papen (Road to War) leader of Nazi-Germany.

 

[LordRahl]

Holy . .. .. .. .!

I don't know what to say... I guess all I've known and been taught so far has been incomplete. I just... I'm sorry, I have no excuse.

I admit ignorance and I promise to research more into it (beyond what I've already researched to make sure you were telling the truth).

I'm just curious what country are you from?

 

[Hitro]

Although I'm not a German (but lived 5 miles from their border), here are mine thoughts about him and the Civilization-series

It's not necessary to include him in the series, there are more German leader who fit very well in the series. But he isn't "not-done" in my view.

As many have mentioned Stalin was evil also, but don't forget Mao Zedong, Churchill, Napoleon they are evil too. And they are in.

There is a basic justification for why Hitler should not be a German leader in Civ that escapes most people's thinking and that doesn't even need any morals, hence everyone should theoretically be able to see it.

Civ is a game based on bringing your nation (or rather, Civilization ) forward with all means you deem necessary. In so far the inclusion of many brutal and sometimes bloodthirsty leaders (it applies to almost all of them, albeit to varying degrees) is only consequent.

However, the thing they have in common is that from that perspective, i.e. apart from all other moral and ethical considerations, they were successful. They were the leaders under which their respective Civilization gained strength - in game terms that would be points, possible a golden age.

Hitler however was even purely from that perspective, even if you would ignore his ruthlessness, his racism and his crimes, a total failure. Within just 12 years he transformed a nation that was (think in Civ terms) amoung the leaders in technology and culture into a wasteland that was morally and economically ruined. And countless millions of people as well as significant amount of territory were lost.
Why should that guy be a leader for his Civ?

 

[Vertico]

I get sick by the idea of D-day, sending thousands of young men in to a certain death while Nazi-Germany already where losing the war, only to stop the total victory of the USSR. They landed, not because the Germans, but because the Russians. That idea is disgusting to me.

Yeah! Thanks to sacrifice of those thousands, now you probably are able to write on this forum! Russian total victory in Europe would mean also that Sweden would become a part of this so called empire. Do you believe they would respect neutrality of any country? The only thing what did USSR respect was American advantage of nuclear power.
I don't know if you heard that many documents are being found for instance in Poland of Warsaw Pact doctrines and plans. Believe me, they weren't defensive.
Most ambitious plan was about invading western europe in masive attack of troops of Poland, NRD, Hungary and Czech up to Belgium, when all armoured NATO divisions divisions were nuked!!
Of course they also predicted NATO nuclear response and agreed to loose their first impact, together with c.a. 50 central european cities and millions of civilians, just to run, the secong impact of 2 milions red army troops on those ruins to take all Europe.

I have a big respect for those thousands who were killed suring D-Day. That bring tha balance, which was a hope for millions people of central europe which finally cause collapse of this cruel regime.

 

[Kanute]

I agree that Hitler was a failure in many respects: strategically miscalculating the outcome of a general war, tactically miscalculating the invasion of U.S.S.R., culturally degenerate, et al... Considering these and other elements he should not be represented in the core game.

However, in a WWII scenario he should definitely be considered. In fact, the war in Europe is considered by many historians to be "Hitler's war". Hitler's war with VonPapen representing the German faction? Its almost absurd and I'm sure that VonPapen would turn in his grave.

 

[m9x]

oh hey, I'm half german half persian, my people on both sides of heritage have had or have hatred against jews, but that doesn't really affect me, anyway.

I view hitler like any other person. doesn't interest me too much, while I know what he has done very well.

saving the arisch race (that word is origins from the persian language btw) is not done by killing jews with no reason. he could as well have just made them leave the country instead. it would have saved so many lifes. I can understand what his intentions were, that's why I say what he could have done "better". but still, what he did was sick and wrong. but yea if I were so sick about saving my race, I'd have done it much less violent. that was his big mistake. he was a good strategic mind however, and I like the wehrmacht warmachine. tiger tanks are my fav.

 

[wicshade]

there was a point where the nazi's did deport jews and cease their assets, i think that the death camps were not built until after the invasion of Poland, because that's where most of them were.

 

[Swaish]

Bad mistake asking gamers to comment on history etc.
Chances are several gamers on here have no higher education in history (German History mainly) or have done much in-depth unbiased research on the subject. I would take a bet that lots of people views are the product of Hollywood/Propaganda.

Should Hitler be in the game? There should be only one question - did his leadership impact history significantly? The answer is yes, thus he should be acceptable as a candidate for Germany.

Was Hitler evil? Evil in itself is up for the individual to judge. I would say that most people, aswell as myself, would say he was 'evil'. However he probably didn't view himself as evil - just a desperate man in desperate times. The humiliation and oppression of his people after the Great War ('stab in the back' 'treaty of Versailles'), the poverty and famine, the popular anti-semitism and anti-communism of the time, the failure of the Wiemar Republic, and the unification of the 'German people' (the early bits of land Hitler invaded contained German speaking peoples) all played a big part of shaping Hitlers view-point.
As for who's to at fault for the evil towards the Jews? Well as mentioned earlier it wasnt as simple as the German people knowing what was going on and letting it happen - most of the time they didn't know, and feared for their own safety. There was no vote on whether to make concentration camps or not. Ironically some historians suggest that the reason the camps existed is largely due to 'Furher Will' - the misinterpretation and abuse of orders from above - For example, after the Allies bombed 'German' homes, it is believed that the Nazi's decide to remove Jews from their homes and give their houses to 'German' people instead, thus the Jews were placed in camps. Sometime, if a commander said "deal with the Jewish problem as you see fit" then many would interpret this as killing the jews, without ever really directly being commanded it. I believe there no documents of any orders signed by Hitler authorising the acts that happened. It is possible that the whole situation got out of hand and one thing changed into another, like a snowball. Hitler may or may not of known what was going on (despite many believing Hitler somehow sat behind a desk and had some Master-Plan about every exact detail), and even if he did, he may not of been able to stop it (if he wanted to) because it was already happening and he didn't want to go against the tide and annoy his own Nazi's. As you can see, it's debatable how much control Hitler actually had, but it's safe to say that yes he was evil and disliked Jews with a passion.

It's funny because America fought against Hitler for 'freedom' etc, yet at the same time at home discriminated against black people and later communists.

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? Besides, strength can bring many good things - just like money (can be used for good, or abused - it itself isn't evil, it's the person in power). God is often seen as 'good' yet there are no elections for that . Also, true direct democracy would be very slow and inefficient, and the only way people can be total free is probably through total-anarchy (no laws, no rules, no leaders etc).

Also as others have mentioned, lots of other 'evil' people are in the game, so the whole issue about him being evil is kind of irrelevant.

I would like to finish by saying I believe Hitler was evil and no way support anything that happened. Thank you.

 

[MangleMeElmo]

Unsubscribing. I can't take any more of this moral relativism bullcrap.

 

[rabidveggie]

Bad mistake asking gamers to comment on history etc.
Chances are several gamers on here have no higher education in history (German History mainly) or have done much in-depth unbiased research on the subject. I would take a bet that lots of people views are the product of Hollywood/Propaganda.

Should Hitler be in the game? There should be only one question - did his leadership impact history significantly? The answer is yes, thus he should be acceptable as a candidate for Germany.

Was Hitler evil? Evil in itself is up for the individual to judge. I would say that most people, aswell as myself, would say he was 'evil'. However he probably didn't view himself as evil - just a desperate man in desperate times. The humiliation and oppression of his people after the Great War ('stab in the back' 'treaty of Versailles'), the poverty and famine, the popular anti-semitism and anti-communism of the time, the failure of the Wiemar Republic, and the unification of the 'German people' (the early bits of land Hitler invaded contained German speaking peoples) all played a big part of shaping Hitlers view-point.
As for who's to at fault for the evil towards the Jews? Well as mentioned earlier it wasnt as simple as the German people knowing what was going on and letting it happen - most of the time they didn't know, and feared for their own safety. There was no vote on whether to make concentration camps or not. Ironically some historians suggest that the reason the camps existed is largely due to 'Furher Will' - the misinterpretation and abuse of orders from above - For example, after the Allies bombed 'German' homes, it is believed that the Nazi's decide to remove Jews from their homes and give their houses to 'German' people instead, thus the Jews were placed in camps. Sometime, if a commander said "deal with the Jewish problem as you see fit" then many would interpret this as killing the jews, without ever really directly being commanded it. I believe there no documents of any orders signed by Hitler authorising the acts that happened. It is possible that the whole situation got out of hand and one thing changed into another, like a snowball. Hitler may or may not of known what was going on (despite many believing Hitler somehow sat behind a desk and had some Master-Plan about every exact detail), and even if he did, he may not of been able to stop it (if he wanted to) because it was already happening and he didn't want to go against the tide and annoy his own Nazi's. As you can see, it's debatable how much control Hitler actually had, but it's safe to say that yes he was evil and disliked Jews with a passion.

It's funny because America fought against Hitler for 'freedom' etc, yet at the same time at home discriminated against black people and later communists.

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? Besides, strength can bring many good things - just like money (can be used for good, or abused - it itself isn't evil, it's the person in power). God is often seen as 'good' yet there are no elections for that . Also, true direct democracy would be very slow and inefficient, and the only way people can be total free is probably through total-anarchy (no laws, no rules, no leaders etc).

Also as others have mentioned, lots of other 'evil' people are in the game, so the whole issue about him being evil is kind of irrelevant.

I would like to finish by saying I believe Hitler was evil and no way support anything that happened. Thank you.

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.

 

[Wolfshanze]

I'm part German and having Hitler in a game would not bother me. I'm not sure I would play the Germans with him. I might change the leader name to Rommell or some other General if it was a WWII scenario.

If you wanted to go that route, I'd say you should have an "Admiral Donitz" leader head... he was technically the Fuhrer or Germany for a short stint!

 

[Chiyochan]

I view him as a totalerian idiot who was a lackluster general, (he wasnt all terrible he did come up with lightning warfare.) Surely anyone who thinks he has a superior race based on color alone need only look at what purebreeding does to dogs, theyve been breeding dogs for a long time too.

 

[lucashp]

This is just like the time I was in 2nd grade in the library doing a book report of shaq.

I saw Hitler in the spechail bookcase for the class to do a book report on, No one choose him. I wonder why.

Edit: Sorry. I guess this was just a postcount Dont qoute me, But just laugh with me...