Should Hitler be in the game?

[SilentDemon]

What empire wasn't (or at least didn't get its pre-imperial start that way.)

The fact is History was not like civ, expanding into 'empty space' finished way before 4000 BC... the 'expansion phase' of human prehistory finished sometime before 10,000 BC. practially every bit of territory in existence has most probably had the 'natives' wiped out by invaders at one point. (most probably so far back in prehistory that no one will ever know the natives existed)

As for Hitler... if he wasn't that controversial he Might be in (probably would in this expansion) given that he did lose, but is well known. However, given the fact that he is uniquely controversial, I'd say he won't be and shouldn't be. In 50 to 100 years maybe.

It has very little to do with the fact that he lost, afterall if he won, we'd be speaking German. His civilization was easily "great" enough to be included, the controversy arises because of his lack of appeal to western and european consumers.

 

[SilentDemon]

Including Hitler in the game would not expand sales. Almost everyone who wants Hitler in the game has either bought the game or plans on buying the game anyways, regardless of whether Hitler is in it or not. In fact, including Hitler would make the game illegal in some countries. Thus, it would decrease sales. Just because we, the people who already have the game, seem to be voting in favor of including Hitler does not equate to an increase in sales. That's just silly. Abiding by the laws of the countries of your fan-base is an important element of the game.

Edit: Besides, this poll is biased from the get-go. It doesn't give a "no" option that is for sales and legal reasons. I say "no" but I didn't vote "no" on this poll because I disagree with both the reasons given in the poll options. I'm fine with including mass murderers and I don't care about the glorifying of taboo ideologies. What I'm against is anything that makes it harder for people to get Civilization. If that option was there, I would vote "no" instead of abstaining.

There has already been numerous discussions about the possibility that the sale of this game would be made illegal by the inclusion of Hitler. From previous posts you will see that that is not necessarily (although a consideration still) the case. More importantly the issue is a very touchy subject amoung many western and european people and there is the potential to decrease sales because of it.

Although its true it probably wouldn't increase sales due to his inclusion, the argument does remain that he probably should have (from a historical aspect) been included from the beginning, so we can still complain that he hasn't been added.

Your edit was exactly the point I previously made.

 

[naterator]

The fact is History was not like civ, expanding into 'empty space' finished way before 4000 BC... the 'expansion phase' of human prehistory finished sometime before 10,000 BC. practially every bit of territory in existence has most probably had the 'natives' wiped out by invaders at one point. (most probably so far back in prehistory that no one will ever know the natives existed)

this is kind of the point i was trying to make. i'm not trying to slam america, i know that everybody's s*** stinks, but i used america as an example because it's a prominant world power that consideres itself to be a "moral compass" of sorts to the world. and even though it's imperial founding wasn't predicated on the idea of killing everyone they met, it IS how we broke out past the ohio river and appalachian mountains, so the imperical phase of american history is based on the conquering of the natives. again, you could pick ANY civ, rome did it's best to wipe carthgage off the face of the earth, they may not really have salted the earth (aincient equivalent to nuking a city, since you've probably slaughtered most of the population already at that point), but they slaughtered and enslaved the populace. the ottomans are in the expansion, and they commited the armenian genocide of 1917. turkey denies this to this day, but nobody ever seems to get worked up about it...

 

[mtu]

I don't know what sort of reaction you were expecting, but this is pathetic. Hitler was not good to my family either but I have more of a sense of perspective than to make it my mission to purge his name from history. I would hope we'd moved beyond the age of obelisk-plastering and memory-holing inconvenient facts and personalities.

Purging his name from history != Playing him

 

[Depravo]

Purging his name from history != Playing him

If you say so. I maintain it's my business.

 

[jar2574]

What about "No -- because there are far better German leaders."

That's one possible answer.

Hitler allowed Germany to be conquered, divided up, and occupied. Hitler was a disaster for the German people.

 

[SilentDemon]

What about "No -- because there are far better German leaders."

That's one possible answer.

Hitler allowed Germany to be conquered, divided up, and occupied. Hitler was a disaster for the German people.

Although at least that is an argueable side, I would still argue that Germany was at a greater height during the third reich than any other time and from greater adversity. Hitler didn't "allow" Germany to be conquered, divided up and occupied, in fact he resisted that happening quite well. The ramifications after his lead were disasterous for the German people, but nevertheless during the time he was in power they were unprecedentedly prosperous. The "losing the war" argument only goes so far with its validity, since afterall he was fighting against the major powers of the world. Had he contrarily succeeded, we wouldn't be having this argument since the world would likely still be under Nazi influence. Being on the losing side of a war, especially a "World War" does not entirely undermine the accomplishments during a rule (especially considering the circumstances,) in the situation of a "World War" they somewhat emphasize it. I'll reiterate previous posts by saying, it was not one mere nation that finally ended the Nazi regime, it was Russia, Great Britain and the U.S. all together against (mostly) just Germany. The worlds most powerful militaries against for the most part *one* nation. Although you can say Italy and Japan were part of the axis as well, the support provided by these other nations was relatively small by comparisson and fighting with Japan didn't begin until Germany was basicly defeated. Fighting on 4 fronts and still marginally losing a war is an accomplishment more than anything else, although it can be argued those fronts should never have been engaged in, it is hard to not think you're invincible when all your neighbors are falling over like dominoes.

As times have become more modern it has become a lot more difficult to become an "empire." It isn't hand to hand fighting anymore, its guns, bombs, tanks, battleships etc. where victory can be much more one sided for unseen technical reasons. It wasn't that Hitler himself was disasterous for the German people, it was the war debts placed on Germany by the allies. True you can say his decisions led to this outcome, but it would be somewhat incorrect. Although Russia had routed the Germans, they weren't about to attack until the allies created another front, and the U.S. (as we so commonly do) engaged in the war out of opportunity. Unlike every other nation involved the U.S. was never directly attacked (Hitler considered the U.S. a potential ally, and that we wouldn't get involved based upon our similarities with our treatments of Native Americans, regardless of the plans to attack the U.S. in the future) and so you cannot say it was Hitlers decisions that brought Germany down (as without the U.S. involved they still may have won) but rather the world powers that did.

 

[Danielos]

I don´t think leaders in Civ 4 should be chosen just for their "greatness" and achievements, but also if they are very well-known, interesting and charismatic.

 

[jar2574]

Hitler didn't "allow" Germany to be conquered, divided up and occupied, in fact he resisted that happening quite well.

Before Hitler Germany was an independent nation. After Hitler, Germany was occupied. His actions led directly to that occupation. He "allowed" Germany to be occupied.

The ramifications after his lead were disasterous for the German people, but nevertheless during the time he was in power they were unprecedentedly prosperous.

If they were prosperous it was only in an economic sense. German culture and morality were disfigured by Nazism. And let's not forget that Hitler's rule did not lead to prosperity of Jews, socialists, gays, the handicapped, or anyone else that Hitler disliked.

The "losing the war" argument only goes so far with its validity, since afterall he was fighting against the major powers of the world.

The "losing the war" argument goes incredibly far since Hitler's plan from the beginning was world domination, which obviously entails warfare. Hitler never planned on permanent peace. War was always on his made. So losing the war delegitimizes any of his "accomplishments."

Had he contrarily succeeded, we wouldn't be having this argument since the world would likely still be under Nazi influence. Being on the losing side of a war, especially a "World War" does not entirely undermine the accomplishments during a rule (especially considering the circumstances,) in the situation of a "World War" they somewhat emphasize it.

Being on the losing side of a war that you start does undermine "accomplishments" during your rule. And you emphasize his "accomplishments" a bit much, I think. They came at enormous costs for the liberty of the German people, as well as their culture and morality.

I'll reiterate previous posts by saying, it was not one mere nation that finally ended the Nazi regime, it was Russia, Great Britain and the U.S. all together against (mostly) just Germany. The worlds most powerful militaries against for the most part *one* nation. Although you can say Italy and Japan were part of the axis as well, the support provided by these other nations was relatively small by comparisson and fighting with Japan didn't begin until Germany was basicly defeated. Fighting on 4 fronts and still marginally losing a war is an accomplishment more than anything else, although it can be argued those fronts should never have been engaged in, it is hard to not think you're invincible when all your neighbors are falling over like dominoes.

If I pick a fight with three other guys and then lose horribly, I'm not going to walk around talking about my "accomplishment." Hitler brought the war on himself. The Great Powers did not get involved until he forced them to.

Hitler voluntarily and unilaterally started the war against the major powers of the world.
Hitler took all he could before France and the UK were forced to declare war.
Hitler declared war on Russia, stabbing Stalin in the back. (Perhaps his largest mistake.)
And Hitler inexpicably declared war on the USA, even though his alliance with Japan did not require that he do so. (His other great mistake.)

As times have become more modern it has become a lot more difficult to become an "empire." It isn't hand to hand fighting anymore, its guns, bombs, tanks, battleships etc. where victory can be much more one sided for unseen technical reasons. It wasn't that Hitler himself was disasterous for the German people, it was the war debts placed on Germany by the allies.

Hitler was much worse for the German people than any war debt. The debts were awful, but they did not cause the destruction of Germany's greatest cities. War debts did not cause the deaths of millions of German Jews and other "undesireables." War debts did not cause the deaths of millions of German soliders and (indirectly) the rapes of millions of German women.

To compare the war debts with the results of Hitler's actions is silly, unless you believe that all the things mentioned above were inevitable after the Allies placed the war debts on Germany. That is not true:

War debts did not lead inevitably these atrocities. 1st, Hitler was unique in many ways, meaning that the war debts did not lead inevitably to these events. 2nd, even if you argue that a person such as Hitler was inevitable after the debts, Hitler could have made better decisions that would not have lead to the destruction of Germany.

True you can say his decisions led to this outcome, but it would be somewhat incorrect.

That's silly and false. Hitler's decisions led directly to the outcome of the war.

Although Russia had routed the Germans, they weren't about to attack until the allies created another front, and the U.S. (as we so commonly do) engaged in the war out of opportunity.

(A) The Russians were engaged in a pretty stiff fight with the Germans, and were counterattacking before the USA, UK, and Canada opened the front at Normandy.

(B) The USA did not engage in "a war out of opportunity." Hitler declared war on the USA. Look it up. What was the USA supposed to do?

Unlike every other nation involved the U.S. was never directly attacked (Hitler considered the U.S. a potential ally, and that we wouldn't get involved based upon our similarities with our treatments of Native Americans, regardless of the plans to attack the U.S. in the future) and so you cannot say it was Hitlers decisions that brought Germany down (as without the U.S. involved they still may have won) but rather the world powers that did.

Absolutely false. The USA was directly attacked by Japan on Dec 7, 1941. The USA declared war on Japan on Dec 8, 1941.

On Dec 11, 1941 Hitler declared war on the USA in a rambling speech to the Reichstag. The USA promptly declared war on Germany.

It was Hitler's decision to declare war against the USA, he did not have to according the his agreement with Japan. It was Hitler's decision that brought the USA into the war.

Hitler's decisions led to disaster for the German people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your insistence that Hitler "accomplished" so much is disturbing, when one weighs the limited economic benefits against the cultural and moral degradation of the German people.

Your apologetic defense of Hitler's war-time decisions is simply misinformed. Hitler made all the important decisions that eventually led to his downfall.

For these reasons, I think that another option would have been useful. There have been many German leaders better than Hitler.

 

[Matrix]

Ik voted second "yes".

"Hell of an impact" is quite the correct phrase.

 

[Wodan]

Hitler committed the CIV sin of over expansion. Frankly, Germany couldn't afford to occupy all the gains that Hitler managed to conquer.

Plus, he committed the strategic sin of getting into a multi-front war. Which, quite frankly, is stupid. Unless you think your advantage is so overwhelming that you can make a bid for Domination right here right now, then you should bite off a big chunk, "make nice" to everybody else, and wait a few hundred years.

Yes, I'm posting a bastard hybrid of CIV and real life. That doesn't make it any less applicable to both.

Wodan

 

[Nuka-sama]

Im 15, and i know that there are 12 year olds (eg. LLXerxes) who play this game as well.

ha! I was only 4 when I first played! (well it was civ 1, and it was pretty much a tutorial from my dad; the greatest Civ player on earth! But I still played!
Btw: Im 12 now,
and Me and my dad voted no

 

[SilentDemon]

Before Hitler Germany was an independent nation. After Hitler, Germany was occupied. His actions led directly to that occupation. He "allowed" Germany to be occupied.

Again, the occupation was a result of losing a "World War," the Nazi empire was conquered and divided up as the allies saw fit after the war, it wasn't Hitlers doing that caused the Russians to hold on to East Berlin for example. A military invasion was not "allowed." Hitler made decisions based upon what he thought were at the time correct, many of which have reasons behind them especially the military ones. It's easy to make an assertion such as yours in hindsight.

If they were prosperous it was only in an economic sense. German culture and morality were disfigured by Nazism. And let's not forget that Hitler's rule did not lead to prosperity of Jews, socialists, gays, the handicapped, or anyone else that Hitler disliked.

Germany was not only prosperous economicly, but industriously, technologically and militarily, most of which stemmed out of the military sense but they are nevertheless true. As I have said in previous posts wars generally do boost a victorious nations prosperity in all fields. German culture and morality were actually at an elevated stance with Nazism. At what time can you say that Germany and their culture was more closely observed and looked at with regard to their accomplishments (with zepplins flying over the new england area with swatstika on them.) Morality comes from a sense of self, and during this time German morality (which honestly is only a footnote) was at its height, the people believed themselves to be the master race, and although this says nothing about their relations to other races (which many did not know about the executions) but they had an overwhelming sense of unity to what they considered "their" people. As far as the prosperity of the "Jews, socialists, gays, handicapped, etc." I hate to be cruel, but "who cares?" A leaders stance toward "other" races does not a great leader make, but what it is for what is *his* race, or rather what it is he identifies with being his people. Stalin for example was terrible to his own people, Russians in general, with similar tactics to Hitler in many ways to industrialize his country yet nevertheless it suited his ends well, also similarly to Hitler.

The "losing the war" argument goes incredibly far since Hitler's plan from the beginning was world domination, which obviously entails warfare. Hitler never planned on permanent peace. War was always on his made. So losing the war delegitimizes any of his "accomplishments."

Losing the war does not undermine most of his accomplishments. Irrespective of the loss (which as I had said was more a question of an entity engaging in the war that he did not begin the conflict with) many of the technologies and advancements coined by the Nazis are still the basis of other fields today. As I have previously mentioned, the German rocketry program was beyond that of the U.S. which led to advancement there, the German knowledge of fisson was beyond that of any other country right up until the manhattan project (which never would have been started without a letter from Einstein) the American military became fashioned after the German military unit, just to cite a few examples, excluding progress in fields of radio and other technologies. Losing the most destructive war of all time, with the largest casaulty list aside from meaning that you lost means that your empire was quite substancial, perhaps more so than any other up to that time. Peace was on his mind, but only when the world had been conquered, and as I previously stated, when you win so easily against such powerful adversaries it is hard to not think you can win if you act quickly.

Being on the losing side of a war that you start does undermine "accomplishments" during your rule. And you emphasize his "accomplishments" a bit much, I think. They came at enormous costs for the liberty of the German people, as well as their culture and morality.

I under emphasize his accomplishments, and I know I do so. I am by no means an expert on the era but have a larger knowledge of it than say a "lay" person. This was a changing point in world history, we very easily could have lost that war. The German people had levels of liberty, mind you not the greatest they have ever had, but it was not the "German" people being persecuted, it was the jews, slavs, handicapped etc. I already gave you a very good argument of their culture (ask me if you want more) and morality was not on such a low level as you imply, which wouldn't matter as I have said it is not the defining point of a great civilization.

If I pick a fight with three other guys and then lose horribly, I'm not going to walk around talking about my "accomplishment." Hitler brought the war on himself. The Great Powers did not get involved until he forced them to.

Hitler voluntarily and unilaterally started the war against the major powers of the world.
Hitler took all he could before France and the UK were forced to declare war.
Hitler declared war on Russia, stabbing Stalin in the back. (Perhaps his largest mistake.)
And Hitler inexpicably declared war on the USA, even though his alliance with Japan did not require that he do so. (His other great mistake.)

That is not true. Hitler initiated the wars with Russia, Britain, and his North African campaign of the powers responsible for defeating him, the U.S. which was the "tipping point" for Nazi Germany, was never directly attacked and it was believed they would abstain from the war as they had done previously, regardless of what statements were made the declaration of war you speak about has to do with the fact that the U.S. was actively selling weaponry to countries besides Germany as a kind of "sneaky" way of not remaining neutral. Almost every war the U.S. has won that hasn't been in self defense has been one of opportunity which has favored them on a level of negotiations. I agree Russia was probably Hitlers greatest mistake since they were on friendly terms with Germany, but nevertheless every empire throughout history has a few skeletons in their closet, had it been a perfect empire we wouldn't be talking about it in the past tense.

Hitler was much worse for the German people than any war debt. The debts were awful, but they did not cause the destruction of Germany's greatest cities. War debts did not cause the deaths of millions of German Jews and other "undesireables." War debts did not cause the deaths of millions of German soliders and (indirectly) the rapes of millions of German women.

Again the deaths of jews subsidized the Germans prosperity, not hindered it as jews were not considered to be their people. The debts and soldiers body count were results of the loss of the war which was not a result of Hitlers loss but the allies victory. Hitler did not place the debt upon Nazi Germany, the allies did for war reparations, the same reason why Germany was in debt after WW1, which helped to spawn Hitler. The debt, also was easier on the German people than that following WW1, as the allies wanted to prevent from the possible creation of another Hitler, so the debt after WW2 proportionately, in the way it was to be paid was actually not the greatest that country had ever seen.

To compare the war debts with the results of Hitler's actions is silly, unless you believe that all the things mentioned above were inevitable after the Allies placed the war debts on Germany. That is not true:

War debts did not lead inevitably these atrocities. 1st, Hitler was unique in many ways, meaning that the war debts did not lead inevitably to these events. 2nd, even if you argue that a person such as Hitler was inevitable after the debts, Hitler could have made better decisions that would not have lead to the destruction of Germany.

Your premises are good but not necessary for the conclusions that you draw. War debts did not "inevitably" lead to atrocities, however did create an environment which made it easier to have reprisals. Hitler was unique in many ways, and in many ways he was not. He was unique in his decisions but every era of hardship is likely to create outspoken people of talent, in this way he was not unique. Hitler could have made better decisions (not taking into account parkinsons + his unorthodox medications, which may have created other mental illness) in hindsight, it is easy to say "well this or that could have been done better" when you're looking back on the events that already happened, it is much different when it is you, right now and you have to decide.

That's silly and false. Hitler's decisions led directly to the outcome of the war.

Already addressed.

(A) The Russians were engaged in a pretty stiff fight with the Germans, and were counterattacking before the USA, UK, and Canada opened the front at Normandy.

(B) The USA did not engage in "a war out of opportunity." Hitler declared war on the USA. Look it up. What was the USA supposed to do?

A.) Although the Russians were counterattacking before the USA, UK, and Canada opened the front at normandy, they had ongoing talks with American ever since war broke out on the eastern front to try to create another front, only after it looked as though the Russian counterattack was going to gain some ground did the U.S. decide to attack, this is well known.

B.) The USA did engage in a "war of opportunity." Contrary to popular belief Hitler didn't just declare war out of nowhere. The U.S. was playing both sides of the fence, similar to WW1 and selling weaponry and giving aid to countries such as Britain while publicly referring to themselves as neutral. The "poor " U.S. was simply biding its time and waiting for the opportunity to go in when the chance was right to "save the day" and have a good negotiating stance with the other nations involved. When you think of it the U.S. lost some of the fewest numbers of people during WW2 of all nations involved and came in when Nazi Germany was already fighting on 3 fronts and was being counter attacked on one of them, who had the most to gain? The U.S. was present during all talks with Stalin and Churchill during and following the war, yet there was no fighting done on U.S. soil. I'd say that is quite opportunistic, getting involved in the spoils of a war that you did the least fighting in.

Absolutely false. The USA was directly attacked by Japan on Dec 7, 1941. The USA declared war on Japan on Dec 8, 1941.

On Dec 11, 1941 Hitler declared war on the USA in a rambling speech to the Reichstag. The USA promptly declared war on Germany.

It was Hitler's decision to declare war against the USA, he did not have to according the his agreement with Japan. It was Hitler's decision that brought the USA into the war.

Hitler's decisions led to disaster for the German people.

Again, Hitler would not have engaged in war with the United States if not for two reasons:

Firstly there is great reason to believe he had already been suffering from mental illness at this time.

Secondly the U.S. was already engaged in the war at this point just not in open combat.

A little side-note, pearl harbor was known about weeks before it actually happened, and it would not have been as devastating as it had been if not for our own government. The government did not believe it was going to be as bad as it was but did know it was going to happen and was looking for an excuse to go to war (as we so commonly do.) Not only are there many memos from generals and cabinet members at this time period to show that this is the case but also just from a rational standpoint: How do you not notice an entire navy full of battleships leaving the ports of Japan when you have embassadors and advisors in that area, and why is it all of the carrier ships just "happened" to not be docked at pearl harbor at the time?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your insistence that Hitler "accomplished" so much is disturbing, when one weighs the limited economic benefits against the cultural and moral degradation of the German people.

Your apologetic defense of Hitler's war-time decisions is simply misinformed. Hitler made all the important decisions that eventually led to his downfall.

For these reasons, I think that another option would have been useful. There have been many German leaders better than Hitler.

Third time, cultural and moral degradation are not the only grounds by which we gauge the achievements or greatness of an empire. In honesty they are two of the smaller fields and one of them (culture) I have already argued was at a height rather than depression.

I am not being "apologetic" over Hitlers war-time defense, I am simply provided a more accurate interpertation of them, since there is more to consider than just "He lost, therefore he is the loser and not worth considering." Your oversimplification of this era and disacknowledgement is what is "misinformed" or more likely "uninformed," anyone who has done some research into this area of history will have a hard time arguing with my statements here and although you have managed to do so, most of the arguments you provide do not hold water.

For these reasons I am quite sure that during Hitlers rule the German empire was at its most powerful it had ever been, although it was short lived, ended in defeat, and involved genocide, there are compareable instances already in the game.

With leaders such as "Churchill" and nations such as "Korea" making their way into the game, Hitler representing Nazi Germany is not so far fetched regardless of what you thought of his policy to already be in the game.

Thanks for the post Jar, you always manage to keep me on my toes

 

[Atropos]

@ Jar and Silentdemon: Both of you have made good points. It seems to me that there are two points at issue: 1. Did Hitler's policies have the potential, had circumstances been different, to strengthen Germany? 2. To what extent did Hitler achieve his goals?

1. I should begin by commenting that there is a reputable school of historical thought, started by A. J. P. Taylor, that believes that Hitler did not bear the primary responsibility for the outbreak of war in Europe. I disagree. It was Hitler's actions which set the agenda, and the Hossbach Memorandum, while it does not prove that he had specific plans for war with France and England in 1939, does suggest that he had more general plans for war with some Western alliance by 1942. There is no reputable school of thought which believes that the US was primarily responsible for Hitler's declaration of war. It is quite true that the US had agreed to supply England with destroyers in exchange for naval bases in the Carribean, and that American vessels in the Atlantic had been told to operate a "shoot on sight" policy against German vessels. This, however, was the product of a series of escalating events which dragged a highly isolationist nation - isolationist, I might add, to its shame - into war against its will. I have myself seen posters from the period advocating distance from the affairs of "War Mad Europe," and it was the general opinion of election pundits at the time that no presidential candidate dared express desire for intervention. Roosevelt, whom we know from his personal papers to have wanted to intervene, was powerless publicly to express support for England until 1940, when American public opinion slowly began to change. Ultimately, Hitler's increasing realisation that America could not be coopted as an ally (he had indeed expressed admiration for segregation and the New Deal earlier in the decade, but he had also expressed admiration for his Anglo-Saxon brethren in England), coupled with his failure to end England's misery in time (more on that later), led to the disastrous declaration.

Nor can Hitler's ultimate failure be attributed solely to American entrance into the war. 90% of all German casualties were incurred on the Eastern Front. Moreover, as you say, he was aging and ill. He may have had Parkinson's disease, and he was certainly addicted to the drugs he took to keep awake. These disabilities helped to cause him to make many critical blunders. It is true that he was personally involved in some of the German military's most astute decisions, such as the choice to defend an advanced line in Russia in the winter of 1941-2, but he was also personally involved in many of its greatest blunders. The refusal to press the advantage at Dunkirk, the insistence that Paulus should hold the line at Stalingrad after he had been surrounded, and the decision to invade the USSR all come to mind.

The pre-1939 period presents a somewhat different case. It is, of course, true that Hitler's policies promoted a period of growth, but the economy already seems to have been overheating by 1939. Moreover, it is not true that Hitler's victims prior to 1939, or indeed thereafter, were restricted to aliens and the handicapped. The SDP, the largest political party in the early Weimar period, was banned and its membership persecuted. Even many conservatives, including some who had supported Hitler's rise to power, were ultimately persecuted: Papen comes to mind. Nor did Hitler's persecution of the Jews produce effects restricted strictly to them. Bear in mind that most Jews considered themselves to be Germans first and Jews second, and that many of their neighbours agreed: read von Klemperer's diaries if you want evidence. Moreover, the flight of Jews left many professional fields understaffed.

Finally, many of the fields of German success you adduced occurred instead of, not because of, the Nazis. Nuclear research is a case in point. You cite Einstein as an example of German influence on the Manhattan Project; but Einstein was only in the US because, as a Jew, he had been hounded out of Germany. Indeed, the reason why Germany fell behind the US in nuclear research was precisely the fact that the Nazi government chose to divert funding to other fields because it considered relativism to be un-German. Germany was probably farther away from developing nuclear capabilities in 1945 than it had been in 1933.

2. Hitler's achievement of his goals is more problematic. One of the most important of his goals was the defeat of what he considered to be the global Jewish conspiracy. In this he had some success, as he had succeeded in exterminating much of the European Jewish population by 1945. The Holocaust, however, was the policy of despair. Hitler turned to extermination precisely because he was beginning to realise that there was a good chance he would be defeated. Moreover, the strengthening of Germany must surely count as one of his aims. In this he failed, and, as I have argued above, his own policies helped cause his failure.

 

[SilentDemon]

@ Jar and Silentdemon: Both of you have made good points. It seems to me that there are two points at issue: 1. Did Hitler's policies have the potential, had circumstances been different, to strengthen Germany? 2. To what extent did Hitler achieve his goals?

1. I should begin by commenting that there is a reputable school of historical thought, started by A. J. P. Taylor, that believes that Hitler did not bear the primary responsibility for the outbreak of war in Europe. I disagree. It was Hitler's actions which set the agenda, and the Hossbach Memorandum, while it does not prove that he had specific plans for war with France and England in 1939, does suggest that he had more general plans for war with some Western alliance by 1942. There is no reputable school of thought which believes that the US was primarily responsible for Hitler's declaration of war. It is quite true that the US had agreed to supply England with destroyers in exchange for naval bases in the Carribean, and that American vessels in the Atlantic had been told to operate a "shoot on sight" policy against German vessels. This, however, was the product of a series of escalating events which dragged a highly isolationist nation - isolationist, I might add, to its shame - into war against its will. I have myself seen posters from the period advocating distance from the affairs of "War Mad Europe," and it was the general opinion of election pundits at the time that no presidential candidate dared express desire for intervention. Roosevelt, whom we know from his personal papers to have wanted to intervene, was powerless publicly to express support for England until 1940, when American public opinion slowly began to change. Ultimately, Hitler's increasing realisation that America could not be coopted as an ally (he had indeed expressed admiration for segregation and the New Deal earlier in the decade, but he had also expressed admiration for his Anglo-Saxon brethren in England), coupled with his failure to end England's misery in time (more on that later), led to the disastrous declaration.

1. I also believe it is the case that Hitlers actions were the primary reason for the outbreak of war in europe. Although the U.S. can not "primarily" be attributed to the declaration of war, lets face facts if someone is quietly "supplying" one side of a war with support and claiming to be isolationist and attempts at preventing this have failed, open war is simply the only way to counter these actions. Although it is true, posters from the time will reflect the attempt to "distance" the U.S. from the war, this does not reflect the underlying sentiment of the government, government is afterall very two faced. As I stated previously a declaration of war was necessary not "out of the blue" as might be suggested.

Nor can Hitler's ultimate failure be attributed solely to American entrance into the war. 90% of all German casualties were incurred on the Eastern Front. Moreover, as you say, he was aging and ill. He may have had Parkinson's disease, and he was certainly addicted to the drugs he took to keep awake. These disabilities helped to cause him to make many critical blunders. It is true that he was personally involved in some of the German military's most astute decisions, such as the choice to defend an advanced line in Russia in the winter of 1941-2, but he was also personally involved in many of its greatest blunders. The refusal to press the advantage at Dunkirk, the insistence that Paulus should hold the line at Stalingrad after he had been surrounded, and the decision to invade the USSR all come to mind.

Although Hitlers ultimate failure cannot be attributed "solely" to American entrance into the war, it is unargueable that it did play a part, and exactly how much of one can never be substantiated. Aside from the troops and casaulty count, the simple logistics and cost of fighting a war on another front can be very taxing and we simply cannot know what would have resulted without America in the war. With the mental illness and medication argument we seem agreed.

The pre-1939 period presents a somewhat different case. It is, of course, true that Hitler's policies promoted a period of growth, but the economy already seems to have been overheating by 1939. Moreover, it is not true that Hitler's victims prior to 1939, or indeed thereafter, were restricted to aliens and the handicapped. The SDP, the largest political party in the early Weimar period, was banned and its membership persecuted. Even many conservatives, including some who had supported Hitler's rise to power, were ultimately persecuted: Papen comes to mind. Nor did Hitler's persecution of the Jews produce effects restricted strictly to them. Bear in mind that most Jews considered themselves to be Germans first and Jews second, and that many of their neighbours agreed: read von Klemperer's diaries if you want evidence. Moreover, the flight of Jews left many professional fields understaffed.

Although Hitlers victims were not restricted to aliens and the handicapped the majority of them indeed were. It is true that there were many victims, (similar to Russia under Stalin) were conflicting political rivals, or potential rivals, this is not an unusual event in great civilizations, brutal as it may be. Jews may have considered themselves to be Germans first and Jews second, but that is of little relevance as the governing political party did not, and honestly if your nation doesn't recognize you as a citizen, you aren't one. The flight of jews left many professional fields understaffed but also caused a rise of nationalism and in so doing a rise in overall national productivity.

Finally, many of the fields of German success you adduced occurred instead of, not because of, the Nazis. Nuclear research is a case in point. You cite Einstein as an example of German influence on the Manhattan Project; but Einstein was only in the US because, as a Jew, he had been hounded out of Germany. Indeed, the reason why Germany fell behind the US in nuclear research was precisely the fact that the Nazi government chose to divert funding to other fields because it considered relativism to be un-German. Germany was probably farther away from developing nuclear capabilities in 1945 than it had been in 1933.

I cited Einstein as an example by which there was a small instance by which that history could have turned, not trying to accredit him to German advancement (since in truth outside of the letter to roosevelt he had little to do with the project which was led by Openheimer.) Germany as far behind in nuclear research as might be thought. One of the lead German physicist regarding nuclear activites was a former constituent of people such as Einstein, but the reason why a bomb was never fashioned (aside from funding) is that it was thought that it couldn't be done. The fact remains one of the integral factors in the U.S. creation of one is a simple plea from Einstein which could have never taken place. I reality Germany was much closer to building a bomb than is thought based on what they knew, but not by what they were doing with the information.

2. Hitler's achievement of his goals is more problematic. One of the most important of his goals was the defeat of what he considered to be the global Jewish conspiracy. In this he had some success, as he had succeeded in exterminating much of the European Jewish population by 1945. The Holocaust, however, was the policy of despair. Hitler turned to extermination precisely because he was beginning to realise that there was a good chance he would be defeated. Moreover, the strengthening of Germany must surely count as one of his aims. In this he failed, and, as I have argued above, his own policies helped cause his failure.

2. In accomplishing his goals I would say he was successful, it is impossible to disacknowledge that aside from Nazi Germany being defeated that they *were* the most powerful military and industrious nation in the world *during* his rule. That is a very difficult fact to refute and one of the major premises of my argument, that is one the most important pieces to focus on, aside from that the counts that technology was cutting edge (regardless if some areas were held back more than they should have because of persecution,) culturally Germany was one of the most focussed on areas of the world (hell even the olympics were held there,) and economicly Germany went from its most devastating debt to prosperity. Until these facts are somehow "magically" thoroughly, not only skeptically argued, but completely refuted then I *must* stand by my claim that this is a time period of which can be classified as a "Great Civilization" by definition.

Very well constructed post, nevertheless.

 

[Pawel]

Germany was not at all close to a nuclear weapon. Even if Heisenberg had not declared that a chain reaction was not possible using fast neutrons, there was no enrichment capability. The capture of the Norwegian heavy water facility opened the path of a Pu-weapon, but the Germans did not know how to actually build a reactor. (Enrico Fermi was the first one who solved the problem.) At the end of the war their uranium was shipped to Japan for use in their nuclear program, but instead the submarine ended up in the US.

This is one of the many myths of Nazi achievements. In fact, the German industry was in total chaos. Compared to allied projects, productivity was much lower, fewer new technologies were implemented in projects that were mature for enough for production, and the failure rate for new projects was much higher. As a consequence, the bulk of the German weapons in 1945 were just upgraded versions of what was already in production in 1939. The Bf109 and PzIV are good examples of this. There was nothing 'great' about Hitler at any level.

 

[Atropos]

Although it is true, posters from the time will reflect the attempt to "distance" the U.S. from the war, this does not reflect the underlying sentiment of the government, government is afterall very two faced. As I stated previously a declaration of war was necessary not "out of the blue" as might be suggested.

These were not government posters. Indeed, I agree with you that the Roosevelt government wanted to bring the US into the war. There was one problem: he couldn't, because popular sentiment (and Congress) were overwhelmingly against it. BOTH candidates in the 1940 election stood on pro-peace platforms. It was simply not electorally viable to demand war with Germany. That is why I believe that it was Hitler's own actions, and, in particular, his failure to bring the war with England to an end, that caused American entry and, indirectly, provided one of the main causes of his own downfall.

Although Hitlers ultimate failure cannot be attributed "solely" to American entrance into the war, it is unargueable that it did play a part, and exactly how much of one can never be substantiated. Aside from the troops and casaulty count, the simple logistics and cost of fighting a war on another front can be very taxing and we simply cannot know what would have resulted without America in the war.

Of course, counterfactual arguments are never entirely convincing. It seems to me, however, that there were two possibilities:

1. America does not enter the war (hardly plausible once the war with England had lasted two and a half years). Germany probably loses. (Remember that Germany's troops were already in full retreat by 1944).

2. America enters the war. Germany definitely loses.

Given that neither option appears particularly attractive from a German point of view, it seems to me that Hitler's constant tendency to bite off more than he could chew needs to be weighed in the scale when assessing his contribution to Germany.

Although Hitlers victims were not restricted to aliens and the handicapped the majority of them indeed were.

The German historian Meinecke wrote a book about the Hitler years in 1946, called The German Catastrophe. It is a ringing condemnation of Hitler's disastrous legacy, his destruction of Bismarck's work. The Jews are barely mentioned and the handicapped not at all.

From the point of view of 2006, we can see that "aliens" were the primary victims of Hitler. From the point of view of 1946, it seemed to most Germans, living in a country devastated by Hitler's war and mourning the loss of family members lost to bombing and service in the army, that they themselves were the biggest victims.

It is true that there were many victims, (similar to Russia under Stalin) were conflicting political rivals, or potential rivals, this is not an unusual event in great civilizations, brutal as it may be.

It's a little more unusual for a Western country in the twentieth century.

Jews may have considered themselves to be Germans first and Jews second, but that is of little relevance as the governing political party did not, and honestly if your nation doesn't recognize you as a citizen, you aren't one.

Hitler never won a majority at any free election, and his share of the vote was decreasing in 1933. It is not quite accurate to see him as the embodiment of German attitudes towards Jews. The reality was much more complicated. Again, read Klemperer if you want to learn about German attitudes towards Jews. There were, of course, anti-Semites in Germany before Hitler, but not nearly so many as in Poland, for example.

The flight of jews left many professional fields understaffed but also caused a rise of nationalism and in so doing a rise in overall national productivity.

Nationalism increases productivity? Evidence, please?

It's true that GDP increased under Hitler, but there is no data to my knowledge that the increase was caused by patriotic enthusiasm, especially since most of the increase occurred in fields in which Jews had not traditionally participated in any case.

I reality Germany was much closer to building a bomb than is thought based on what they knew, but not by what they were doing with the information.

But not by what they were doing with the information. That's the point.

The Nazi government catastrophically underestimated the utility of the "Jewish science" of relativity. This was a major blunder on their part. Read Gordon Wright's Ordeal of Total War if you are interested in the ideological dimensions of the Nazi government's funding decisions.

German scientific advances in nuclear technology occurred despite Hitler, not because of Hitler.

In accomplishing his goals I would say he was successful, it is impossible to disacknowledge that aside from Nazi Germany being defeated that they *were* the most powerful military and industrious nation in the world *during* his rule.

Not during that part of his rule that ran from 1942 to 1945, by any definition. "Apart from being defeated" is a rather significant caveat, don't you think?

And not during any other part of his rule either, in my view. Germany never fought an extended campaign prior to Operation Barbarossa. When it was finally forced to mobilize for total war after 1942, the fragility of the German military achievement became evident. In essence they were incapable of defeating any foe that withstood the first onslought. They had neither the industrial production nor the population to win an industrial-age war over the long run.

aside from that the counts that technology was cutting edge (regardless if some areas were held back more than they should have because of persecution,)

Much of German technology was cutting edge, yes. That had been the case since the Kaiserreich. It was not Hitler's achievement.

culturally Germany was one of the most focussed on areas of the world (hell even the olympics were held there,)

The achievements of Germany as a civilization are not at issue. The question is whether Hitler was a great leader. In the field of culture it seems obvious to most historians that he ******** rather than promoting German culture. Mahler, Heine and much of Mozart were banned. Nearly all of the major German writers of the period (Thomas Mann, Hesse, Brecht) were alienated; most left, and Nazism produced nothing comparable as a replacement.

and economicly Germany went from its most devastating debt to prosperity.

And back again. The devastation of 1933 was nothing to that of 1945.

But I do not deny that Hitler helped promote the recovery of the 1930s. Nonetheless, not every leader who helps promote economic recovery is a great leader. In these terms, Stresemann was at least as great a leader for ushering the German economy back to recovery in 1923-4. I might add that the credit for the 1930s recovery belongs to Schacht as much as to Hitler.

Until these facts are somehow "magically" thoroughly, not only skeptically argued, but completely refuted then I *must* stand by my claim that this is a time period of which can be classified as a "Great Civilization" by definition.

Germany, once again, is a great civilization. This is not at issue. But was Hitler a great leader?

Very well constructed post, nevertheless.

Many thanks. Yours too.

 

[jar2574]

Hitler made decisions based upon what he thought were at the time correct, many of which have reasons behind them especially the military ones. It's easy to make an assertion such as yours in hindsight.

Hitler's decisions were stupid. They led to the destruction of Germany. Of course it's easy to say that in hindsight. So what? That doesn't mean he was any better of a leader. In hindsight we can see that his decisions led to the annihilation of Germany.

Germany was not only prosperous economicly, but industriously, technologically and militarily, most of which stemmed out of the military sense but they are nevertheless true.

At huge moral costs, which you disregard in disturbing fashion.

As I have said in previous posts wars generally do boost a victorious nations prosperity in all fields. German culture and morality were actually at an elevated stance with Nazism. At what time can you say that Germany and their culture was more closely observed and looked at with regard to their accomplishments (with zepplins flying over the new england area with swatstika on them.)

Ask Germans whether they think their cultural zeneith occurred during Nazism.
Your assertion that "culture" and "morality" were at a zenith during Nazism implies flat out racism, and I'm sure you haven't thought through what you are saying. Only a racist could seriously argue that an ideology based upon racism and hate was an "elevation" of German culture. And let's not kid ourselves. Nazism was racism, not an "elevation" of some noble German ideal.

Morality comes from a sense of self, and during this time German morality (which honestly is only a footnote) was at its height, the people believed themselves to be the master race, and although this says nothing about their relations to other races (which many did not know about the executions) but they had an overwhelming sense of unity to what they considered "their" people.

The moral code of a Nazi is immoral and evil. No sense of unity changes that. Morality does not solely come from a sense of self and racial unity.

As far as the prosperity of the "Jews, socialists, gays, handicapped, etc." I hate to be cruel, but "who cares?"

I do. Any moral individual should.

Their prosperity? You act as though they had to pay more taxes.
They were murdered. Your post displays callous indifference to human life.

Visit any of the concentration camps. Regain your humanity. Do not ignore the deaths of millions in a rush to glorify the sick acts of a racist mass murderer.

Losing the war does not undermine most of his accomplishments.

It undermines them all. All of his "accomplishments" were only meant to further his war aims. His goal always involved world war. Losing it undermined any "accomplishments" he had made.

How much good did all the rockets and new gadgets do the Germans when their cities lay in ruins and their women and children were being bombed?

That is not true. Hitler initiated the wars with Russia, Britain, and his North African campaign of the powers responsible for defeating him, the U.S. which was the "tipping point" for Nazi Germany, was never directly attacked and it was believed they would abstain from the war as they had done previously, regardless of what statements were made the declaration of war you speak about has to do with the fact that the U.S. was actively selling weaponry to countries besides Germany as a kind of "sneaky" way of not remaining neutral. .

Hitler declared war on the USA first. Not the other way around. You've just got things all mixed up.

The USA was selling weapons to the allies. So what? The USA was not at war. Hitler was the one who declared war. The USA responded in self-defense. What was it supposed to do? Ignore the u-boats headed for the Eastern seaboard.

Almost every war the U.S. has won that hasn't been in self defense has been one of opportunity which has favored them on a level of negotiations.

So what? The USA was attacked at Pearl Harbor and then Germany declared war as well. WWII was fought in self-defense. Other conflicts deserve other threads.

Hitler could have made better decisions (not taking into account parkinsons + his unorthodox medications, which may have created other mental illness) in hindsight, it is easy to say "well this or that could have been done better" when you're looking back on the events that already happened, it is much different when it is you, right now and you have to decide.

Yes, many of Hitler's decisions were insane, stupid, and disastrous.

And yes, that's easy to tell in hindsight. That's the point of looking at history. We can tell the crappy leaders from the good ones by seeing who made better decisions from the vantage of hindsight. And here, we can see that Hitler made awful decisions, and that Germany offers many better leaders to choose from.

------

--EDIT

Don't have time to comment on the rest. I've got to go to bed.

I enjoy debating with you SilentDemon.

But your positions really make you look like a Nazi sympathizer, which makes you look like a racist. Nazism is racist to its core, and cannot be defended as any kind of a cultural or moral achievement unless one is willing to overlook its racism.

I doubt that you are racist. I honestly think you're probably just fascinated by Hitler, not his ideology. I just wanted to let you know how it looked. Saying things like "who cares" about all the gays, the jews, and the handicapped who died. That's just an awful thing to say. All of that is only relevant because you started defending Hitler's cultural contributions to Germany. If you would have just stuck to his military achievemants then maybe you'd have had a better argument. Although, obviously we disagree on his effectiveness there as well.

Take care,
jar

 

[jar2574]

2. In accomplishing his goals I would say he was successful, it is impossible to disacknowledge that aside from Nazi Germany being defeated that they *were* the most powerful military and industrious nation in the world *during* his rule.

Well none of that is true. His goal of world domination was not successful. His goal of eliminating the jews was not successful.

And furthermore, Germany was not the most powerful nation. The USA was. The USA gross domestic product was more that double Germany's in 1938.
http://www.onwar.com/articles/0302.htm

The USA military production capacity was higher six months after it was attacked than Germany's ever was.

 

[massdriller]

IMHO, The question of putting leaders is the most controversial one. Yes, putting hitler in does illuminate passion from members, however, i would like to point out, no matter whoever the person was, he did lead the country, no boubt people suffered or whatever, they still lead the country. It's in history and it's in the books. Book don't lie. Well, at least those that tell the truth; encyclopedias . I don't care if the leader is the king of mars, but if he was a leader, he was a leader.

People point out that hitler was a mass murderer, and blah, but the fact remains he was a leader. Same for the reason mao and possibly stalin. Yes, some argue germany might possibly ban the game and such. However, it is possible for fraxis to release a add on on it's site for only hitler and some other controversial people to the Civilizations series.