Should Hitler be in the game?

[SilentDemon]

Killing large numbers of civilians is a bad thing. Any moral code has to start from there.

Yet with the state of countries of the world today, it obviously does not.

 

[SilentDemon]

I think if I keep writing my responses here I'm gonna get a knock at my door one of these days from someone trying to shoot me thinking I'm gonna be the next Hitler with my "racist ideologies" and "poor morality"

 

[Sohan]

Well said, Atropos and SilentDemon. A lot of information.

As a sidenote, Julius Caesar neither inherited an empire nor built one. A small technicality really. Julius inherited a Republic and was given the official title of Dictator of that Republic. It took his Great-Nephew (Adopted Son) Octavion to actually turn Rome into an Empire. Eventually Octavion became known as Caesar Augustus, the first Emperor, although even during his lifetime no one thought of him as an Emperor. It took future generations for that to happen. Anywho...

Moral fabric, or any moral code really, does hold water nowadays. Morality is a real issue and it does play a role in one's greatness. However, I'm not sure Civilization IV quite adheres to that. The possibility that the creators may be Socialist-leaning (I'm not accusing Civilization of being full of Commies) might have something to do with Stalin getting in and Hitler not.

 

[SilentDemon]

Well said, Atropos and SilentDemon. A lot of information.

As a sidenote, Julius Caesar neither inherited an empire nor built one. A small technicality really. Julius inherited a Republic and was given the official title of Dictator of that Republic. It took his Great-Nephew (Adopted Son) Octavion to actually turn Rome into an Empire. Eventually Octavion became known as Caesar Augustus, the first Emperor, although even during his lifetime no one thought of him as an Emperor. It took future generations for that to happen. Anywho...

Moral fabric, or any moral code really, does hold water nowadays. Morality is a real issue and it does play a role in one's greatness. However, I'm not sure Civilization IV quite adheres to that. The possibility that the creators may be Socialist-leaning (I'm not accusing Civilization of being full of Commies) might have something to do with Stalin getting in and Hitler not.

Yeah Julius Caeser did inherit a republic, I was simplifying things as although Rome was not the empire it became under Octavian it was still for the most part at the height of power with relation to the rest of the world at the time Caeser came to power.

As of more modern times "morality" in this situation being used as nations not committing mass acts of genocide or similar has only become a staple of the more prominent powers of the world because it has been in their interest to be moral. During different times and under different conditions however, this belief is disregarded very quickly. The point is that being "moral" is not something that is generally done out of the "good" of a governments heart, but rather done when it is in their best interest to do so.

 

[Sohan]

One argument I might have used to explain the lack of Hitler was that there were better choices for German leaders, but since Stalin was the third leader for the Russians, that argument has a huge hole. Why not add Hitler as the third leader for the Germans? Otto von Bismarck and Frederick the Great were certainly awesome figures in German history, but Hitler is certainly up there.

So, in the end, I guess it boils down to a willingness to take a risk or not. Are you willing to risk a large sum of money over something so minor as adding a different leaderhead for the same pair of traits? Although, it would be amusing to see the animated Hitler-head. So many of them are so different from their real life selves that Hitler would have to be made amusing somehow.

 

[jar2574]

The fact that you are trying to link my defense to a ideology of racism in my behalf has such a stunning level of poor conclusion drawing on a logical or analytical basis requires me to cite it out and point out that there is definately a level of bias which makes your arguing ability problematic. I find the racist implication disturbing only because I have done nothing to provide you with a valid argument to make such an accusation.

You claimed that Hitler brought Germany its greatest cultural achievements. Hitler's ideology was racism, pure and simple. Racism does not equal cultural achievement. If you can't see the racist implications here then you're blind.

Defend Hitler's military achievements all you want, and I'd never see a racist implication. Defend his "cultural" achievements and you raise serious implications of racism.

When I used the simple terms "Who Cares?" I meant the statement from the scheme of government and accomplishment, rather than from a personal perspective. I was trying to simplify the truth in that many governments have had mass extermination campaigns which have not really hindered them from being regarded great empires when they were.

Murdering millions is an immoral scheme of government and demonstrates no "accomplishment."

The fact that other governments have murdered millions does not mean that Hitler's murders were more or less moral. That kind of argument is what makes cultural relativism weak.

Furthermore, Hitler's exterminations DID hinder his empire, because instead of pulling troops from the concentration camps when they were needed at the front, he left them behind the front-lines. So his exterminations weren't like the other "great empires" you seem to be refering to.

I have for the most part been fair and forthright in arguing the side as I see it without using derogatory remarks and granting people their stance when it is they have made their point well, which I think is what it is I should be doing.

Absolutely. And I wouldn't have brought up the racist implications if you hadn't brought up Hitler's CULTURAL achievements. If you find my remarks "derogatory" then so be it. The racist implications of Hitler's "cultural achievements" are simply too blatent to be ignored.

You do not need to be a racist to appreciate a leaders respective position in history.

No kidding? If that was all that you were doing, then clearly there would be no racist implications.

But you aren't just "appreciating a leaders respective position," you're claiming not only that he was a good military leader, but that he brought cultural advacement to his country.

You have to be a racist to appreciate Nazism as any kind of "advancement" of German culture. There is no nice way of putting that. And this isn't just my opinion. Walk into any bar in Germany and start asserting that Germany's finest cultural "advacement" or "achievements" come from Hitler. That position is an insult to the German people.

I always seem to find it funny that those who would cite "morality" are often the first to resort to insults.

I find it hilarious that you haven't yet been able to mount a defense against the substance here. So instead of replying to my argument that nazism is racism, and was not a cultural advacement, you moan about "insults."

I can't help it that your position looks racist. I wasn't the one that brought up culture.

Those who defend Hitler's "cultural achievemants" are usually racists. If you can defend Nazism as being culturally beneficial without looking like a racist then go ahead. If you can't, then don't whine about "insults."

 

[jar2574]

Yet with the state of countries of the world today, it obviously does not.

Don't confuse the actions of countries in the world today with moral codes.

Murdering millions of civilians is immoral whether countries do it or not.

 

[Atropos]

Although Germany was in retreat on the Eastern front from the campaign with Russia (which most likely would have ended in defeat in of itself) there is a level of questionability as to whether it would have. Afterall normandy had to be defended, and SS panzer divisions were held in reserve simply because Hitler believed there would be a secondary landing location. There is some question as to how the war would have ended if America hadn't gotten involved in the war, since the major progression would have only been on the eastern front then.

It is questionable, yes. As I said, all counterfactual scenarios can be questioned. In fact, computer simulations of a war between France and Germany in 1940 suggest France should have won.

But the case is so dubious that I believe Hitler's decision to invade Russia has to be considered a major miscalculation.

Although there are going to be outspoken people during any act of genocide, it nevertheless was a unifying factor for a good percentage of the German populace.

Please re-read my post. I am not talking about opposition to the genocide, although it existed. I am talking about opposition to the wider results of Hitler's policies. The overwhelming evidence suggests that the genocide was not a major factor in determining contemporary (ethnic) German attitudes towards Hitler, either in terms of support of in terms of opposition. Rather, the ultimately disastrous effects of Hitler's miscalculations led many people who had previously remained silent, such as Meinecke, into believing that he was a bad thing for ethnic Germans.

Maybe not, but then again you do not necessarily need a majority to influence and control a populace into doing what it is you have set yourself to do. Afterall christian conservatives seem to be running the U.S. these days and they are a minority group (sorry, had to put in a little humor.)

But the question is not merely whether the majority of the German population was controlled. It is whether it believed that Hitler was beneficial to it. Although this may have been the case for some of Hitler's policies in the late 1930s, there is no evidence to suggest that this was true for most of the 1933-45 period.

Look at any country during a time of military excercise and the general rule is that productivity does go up, not just because there is a need on an industrious level but because patriotic sentiment and the "rally around the flag" notion triggers a higher level of cooperation in the idea to defend ones country.

In the case of popular wars, yes. But overwhelming evidence from the captured archives of the Nazi government suggests that Germany did not want another war so soon after the last. In 1938, for example, the extremely hostile reception which greeted tank parades seems to have helped convinced Hitler not to force war over Czechoslovakia.

Moreover, you do not appear to have answered my main point. My main point was that the massacre of the Jews, i.e. the massacre of a large section of the German professional classes, was economic suicide. It led to a large and measurable shortage of talent in fields in which Jews had traditionally been overrepresented, such as medicine.

The U.S. was doing similarly next to nothing with similar information up until the manhattan project was started, which wasn't even conceived of and may have never been started without being implored by Einstein. So it isn't as though the U.S. or any other country was a beacon of research into this area by which to set an example upon.

I am not saying in any form that the US was a beacon of research. Germany was initially far more advanced. It is precisely the way in which the Nazi government squandered the advantage it inherited that is of interest.

Although there is some validity in saying advances occured in spite of Hitler rather than because of, you can say that about many advances during any other empires that just happened to occur during a persons lead, they still happened during that persons seat in power is the point.

Archimedes was one of the greatest scientists of history and made many notable contributions. Should King Hieron of Syracuse, under whom he happened to live, be viewed as a great leader for that reason?

Also, most of the great scientists of Hitler's era had begun their work before he came to power.

An agreed problem was that Germany was overextended and fought on too many fronts (the classic reason for losing a war.) The point remains any one adversary engaged in individually probably would have lost against Germany at its height during this era.

In the first case, it is not obvious that the US or the USSR would have lost a war in isolation. Germany was unable even to take out England when the latter stood alone in late 1940. Moreover, the Germany of Wilhelm II stood continuously for four years against three world powers, with no assistance other than Austria-Hungary's (not much more useful than Italy in WWII). Hitler did not create German preponderance in Europe. He ended it.

The achievements of the German civilization are directly related to Hitler, many of them in the least.

Great German achievements:
Goethe
Schiller
Heine
Hesse
Mozart
Beethoven
Brahms
Bach
Thomas Mann
Schubert
Schumann
Rilke

The list goes on.

All of these people lived before Hitler (except Mann, who opposed him). In what way was he responsible for their achievements?

Economicly, it was Hitlers policies which recovered the country, which led to many other achievements.

Hjalmar Schacht's policies, actually.

Militarily and Industrially again, how could they not be linked to him?

German industrial might predated Hitler. German military success was in part the result of his decisions, but so was German military failure after 1941.

Writing is not the only source of "culture"

Two of the three people I listed in my prior post as banned or partially banned under Hitler were composers.

and I agree that there were areas that were restricted by Hitler,

Which dwarf any cultural achievement accomplished under Hitler. Or was there a pro-Hitlerian composer/writer/anything working from 1933 to 1945 (or some part thereof) who deserves even to be mentioned in the same breath as Mahler or Heine, both of whom were banned?

but Nazi Germany was definately a large cultural source.

I do not think that you have proved this point. Again, list any major pro-Hitlerian cultural figure, working between 1933 and 1945, who is worthy of comparison with the great figures of the German past prior to 1933.

Since many if not all achievements in the broader sense have to be in some small way attributed to him, I have to say he was a great leader.

Because he failed in his declared objectives, and because German non-military achievements under his reign were insignificant compared with German achievements before and (economically) after, I disagree. This is not to deny that he was great in another sense: that of having a huge impact upon the lives of his contemporaries. In fact, in the case of many such lives, he ended them. You can't have a bigger impact than that.

In some way I disagree that the economic blight of 1945 was greater. True Germany was more thoroughly destroyed and proportionately the debt was likely higher (I don't have exact figures.) However a consideration of the allies was to have Germany rebuilt more quickly and more easily so that a reoccurence of a figure such as Hitler didn't happen.

The Western allies, yes. The major concern of the Soviets was to extract as much in reparations as possible.

Consider the status of Germany in 1945, and compare it to that in 1933. Huge areas of the 1933 territory were permanently lost to Poland. 9.1% of the population were dead. The country was dismembered and under enemy occupation.

How can you argue that this was preferable even to the depths of the depression (from which the country was slowly beginning to recover by 1933?)

It is difficult to seperate one from the other. Afterall would you dispute some other figures such as say Alexander the Great on a personal level despite the fact that he held one of the largest empires ever in the world, regardless of the fact it collapsed soon after his death?

Not comparable. Alexander created that empire and it stood as long as he did. Hitler created an empire of sorts which collapsed during his own lifetime.

Would you question if Julius Caeser were a great leader since he inherited what already was the most powerful empire on the earth?

Would you question the inclusion of Commodus since he inherited what already was the most powerful empire on earth?

Julius Caesar's greatness does not lie in the greatness of Rome under his rule, but in his own work to extend its rule in Gaul and Egypt - work which lasted for centuries.

It is difficult to seperate the man sitting in power with the civilization it is he is in power of, they become not only the embodiement of what that empire represents but also dictate the policy that governs it and leads to its success or failure.

In Hitler's case, he dictated the policy which led to its failure. But, also, the greatest German achievements can clearly be shown to have pre-dated him.

 

[jar2574]

I haven't seen one constructed yet, have you, or better yet can you?

The beginning of a logically coherent moral code:

P1: Human life has value.
P2: Things with value should not be destroyed without justification.
C: Human life should not be destroyed without justification.

If you want to argue that murdering civilians has justification in particular cases, then you may do so. If you want to argue that Hitler was justified in murdering based on racism, then please feel free. Since I believe that Hitler was without proper justification, I believe that he acted immorally.

Simple logic can show us the basic outlines for a moral code. Whether every individual can succeed in living up to that moral code is a completely different question.

To say that logic and moral codes are incompatible is silly.

 

[jar2574]

Despite the GNP, the military application, technology and experience aside from production was higher than that of the United States, the U.S. was not the most powerful military at the time.

Your economic arguments about Germany's world dominance were clearly wrong, and so now we turn to the military equation.

The USA was far more powerful that Germany militarily within a year of being attacked. Germany never had a shot at destroying America. It was insane to declare war on the USA. The USA wasn't more powerful than Germany from the 1930s through 1941, only because Germany had been building its military, while the USA was not.

The production figures of the major WWII powers show that USA military production dwarfed Germany's, and the USA was not involved in the war for nearly as long as Germany. (although the cite is Wikipedia, the references are listed.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

Germany could not even defeat the UK! The UK fought off Germany alone for quite some time, before Hitler made the asinine decisions to declare war on Russia and then later the USA.

Germany was only the greatest military power under Hitler for a short time, and only because his plan all along involved world war. Germany was not able to defeat the UK, even though Germany outproduced the UK. And Germany was outproduced by both Russia and the USA.

As far as tech research goes, other posters have pointed out that the Allies surpassed Germany during Hitler's reign. The German tech problems started even before the war, as the brain drain started. And once the war started, Germany problems just multiplied. The Allies ability to crack German codes, the UK's use of radar, the USA's use of sonar, the Allies ability to make long-range bombers, and the Allies creation of the atomic bomb were all areas were Allied tech superiority helped win the war.

 

[jar2574]

I think that you underestimate Stalin's originality slightly, and drastically overestimate Hitler's.

Stalin's doctrine of intensifying class struggle as the communist millenium approaches may not be the greatest of theoretical contributions to Marxism, but it was original and it helped steer the USSR even further towards brutality. As a justification for mass murder, it was far more original than Hitler's racism.

I've got to admit that I havent' read anything on Stalin in over a year. But my memory was that he wasn't a great thinker, he just implemented other people's ideas in a most brutal fashion.

Class struggle had already been used to justify murder, right? Just not on the scale that Stalin used it. From what I've read, Stalin would simply borrow ideas from the Russian elite. He murdered many comrades just before implementing their ideas. He didn't think up any new ideas, or even add a new twist.

And Stalin would flip-flop constantly, rewriting history in an attempt to justify the failures of some of his programs. His willingness to change ideological course stands in stark contrast to Hitler's ideological focus. My interpretation is that Stalin really didn't have an ideological core, other than his pursuit of further power via the Russian state.

Name one idea Hitler had that cannot be traced to earlier racists.

I thought I stated quite clearly that Hitler borrowed from earlier thinkers. The uniqueness came from the fact that he combined ideas as varied as Wagner, Neitzche, eugenics, and outright race hatred, and combined them into a unique new ideology.

Regarding current danger to the world, I think it varies from country to country...Both Nazism and Stalinism were ideologies of consummate evil and the world needs to remember just how evil they were.

The danger probably varies. I've just never met a Stalinist. Who justifies Stalin these days? Anyone? Stalin's actions were so irratic that the only common theme is his pursuit of centralized power. Hitler's ideas still inspire many racist groups. So I think Hitler's more dangerous.

But like I said, I just haven't read much on Stalin in over a year. So if you could fill me in on what makes one a Stalinist, then maybe I'd see your side of things.

Finally, however, I should comment that I am uncertain how this remembrance is served by excluding them from the game.

Yeah, I was never arguing that we should exclude Hitler based on his "evil." Maybe we should remember him by putting him in the game.

I was saying that I think he was a disaster for his country, and that German had many better leaders to offer. I thought there should be another choice in the poll.

Stalin won, and Russia was able to rise up and become a superpower, so that provides some justification for allowing him in the game. Hitler was just an unmitigated disaster for Germany.

 

[supersoulty]

I didnt vote, because my option wasnt on there.

A resounding No, not because of attrocities committed, but rather because Hitler is the worst leader imaginable.

How does one appropriatly gaudge a leader? Clearly, there are people out there who think that Mao was a great leader, even if not a good one. How is Hitler any worse than Mao or Stalin or Genghis Kahn or (pick half the leaders in the game).

He Led Germany to complete and utter destruction in 12 years and 3 months. Berlin was over-ran with Soviet troops and Germany would be divided for 45 years afterwards.

Louis XIV's lavish spending on himself helped bankrupt France to the point where his grandson (who really hadn't done anything wrong) was thrown out of power and killed by a country in utter caose. This led to the rise of Napoleon who then led France to conquest and latter total ruin. Both of these leaders are in the game. Only a stroke of very good fortune kept Prussia from being destroyed under Fredrick the Great. Which brings up another point, neither of the "German" leaders in the game were Germans at all. They were Prussians. And when Fredrick ruled Prussia, it barely contained any of modern Germany.

I dont know what qualifies a leader for civ4, but I can tell you that a leader who destroyed his country is not deserving of being a leader.

Well, if the game designers applied their standards consistantly, then it appears that you should rethink your ideas on this matter.

 

[Atropos]

I've got to admit that I havent' read anything on Stalin in over a year. But my memory was that he wasn't a great thinker, he just implemented other people's ideas in a most brutal fashion.

He wasn't a great thinker, but he had some original ideas. Hitler wasn't a great thinker either.

Class struggle had already been used to justify murder, right? Just not on the scale that Stalin used it. From what I've read, Stalin would simply borrow ideas from the Russian elite. He murdered many comrades just before implementing their ideas. He didn't think up any new ideas, or even add a new twist.

True up to a point, but too simple. Class struggle had already been used to justify murder before Stalin. Racism had already been used to justify murder before Hitler. I think that it is fair to say that he added a "new twist" with his idea, which starkly contrasted with the orthodoxy of the time, that class struggle would intensify rather than diminish as true communism approached. This was the "justification" for the mass purges.

And Stalin would flip-flop constantly, rewriting history in an attempt to justify the failures of some of his programs. His willingness to change ideological course stands in stark contrast to Hitler's ideological focus. My interpretation is that Stalin really didn't have an ideological core, other than his pursuit of further power via the Russian state.

Arguable. Stalin's letters to Molotov suggest, to me at least, that he sincerely believed at least some of what he wrote. Remember that, at the time when he dropped out of his seminary at Tiflis to become a revolutionary, the Bolsheviks hardly seemed the best choice for either personal or national power. I also think that you overestimate Hitler's focus. He was amenable to pressure and circumstance up to a point. To take one example, the definition of Judaism changes constantly in the anti-Semitic laws of the 1930s. Nor is there any evidence that suggests that Hitler had a master plan to kill the Jews from which he never deviated. He wanted them eliminated, but he was willing to consider options such as deportation to Madagascar rather than immediate extermination.

I thought I stated quite clearly that Hitler borrowed from earlier thinkers. The uniqueness came from the fact that he combined ideas as varied as Wagner, Neitzche, eugenics, and outright race hatred, and combined them into a unique new ideology.

I do not see anything particularly unique about Nazism. It bears a marked similarity to many ideas bandied about among the members of the Freikorps and the extreme right, primarily in Germany but also in other countries. The explosive combination of Wagnerian anti-Semitism, bowdlerised Nietzscheanism and eugenics is present in many others at the time, e.g (iirc) Houston Stewart Chamberlain.

The danger probably varies. I've just never met a Stalinist. Who justifies Stalin these days? Anyone? Stalin's actions were so irratic that the only common theme is his pursuit of centralized power. Hitler's ideas still inspire many racist groups. So I think Hitler's more dangerous.

One of the parties composing the majority of the current Italian government is an unreformed Communist group. I don't know if it openly supports Stalin now, but I believe its leader has commented approvingly on Stalin in the past. Radical leftist parties do not tend to praise Stalin as openly as radical right parties praise Hitler, but they tend to be closer to power (e.g. the German Linke, headed by a former leader of the SDP).

But like I said, I just haven't read much on Stalin in over a year. So if you could fill me in on what makes one a Stalinist, then maybe I'd see your side of things.

There are as many definitions of Stalinism as there are historians. A minimum definition would have to include acceptance of the Leninist tradition of violent revolution by a tightly controlled party, rejection of all cooperation with bourgeois parties (including social democratic parties) except that dictated by tactical necessity, and a belief that industrialization in underdeveloped countries is best funded by a "tribute" (Stalin's phrase) levied on the peasantry, specifically on the middle segment of the peasantry as defined by Lenin. I am not including a belief in the extermination of "class enemies" because this belief was shared by all Bolsheviks at the time, even relatively moderate ones like Bukharin.

You could argue that Stalinism today would simply mean a belief in violent class struggle, but you could equally argue that Nazism today would simply mean violent racism.

Yeah, I was never arguing that we should exclude Hitler based on his "evil." Maybe we should remember him by putting him in the game.

I was saying that I think he was a disaster for his country, and that German had many better leaders to offer. I thought there should be another choice in the poll.

He was a disaster for his country. But in what sense does Germany have "better" leaders? Morally better? Sure. Hard to argue with that. More important in their impact on contemporaries? Now that's hard to suggest. Hitler killed more people than Barbarossa ruled.

Stalin won, and Russia was able to rise up and become a superpower, so that provides some justification for allowing him in the game. Hitler was just an unmitigated disaster for Germany.

But did Russia become a superpower because of Stalin? Industrialisation rates in the 1930s were comparable to those under NEP or in late Tsarist Russia. And Stalin turned the USSR from a massive net exporter of grain into a country that could barely break even. Moreover, many of the arguments against the economic rationality of the Holocaust also apply in the case of Stalin's policies. Those killed were the country's best and brightest, those who had been able to succeed under competitive conditions. I remember reading an account of a Russian village which first received electrical power in the 1920s. The electrical power was the work of an entrepreneurial miller. In the 1930s he was deported as a kulak, and the village reverted to candles.

 

[supersoulty]

On that note, lets just cut the crap.

The only reason he is not in the game is because he is HITLER. The big bad wolf. The only person on the face of the planet that we are taught that there was absolutely nothing admirable about. All these other people who did terrible things (Ceasar, Kahn, Stalin, Mao, Mansa, Peter....) are seen as socially acceptable. It is not bad for someone to admire them for one asspect of their charecter, or another. Instead, all of the wrath of humanity is piled on this one guy, who all people have seemed to universally decide is the worst humanbeing who ever lived. All those other people get a pass.

I don't like Hitler. I despise him with a passion. And I despise Mao and Stalin, but I am willing to accept them being in the game. And I am willing to have an open dialouge on there merits and misdeeds. I hate to be the one who has to even come close to defending Hitler, but what the guy did is no worse than a lot of people who are already in the game. Any excuse that tries to make up for his absence is simply a cover for the lack of social exceptability and the massive stigma that we are all trained to place upon Hitler.

As for the rest of these leaders I have mentioned, most of society is either ignorant, appathetic, or supportive of there deeds. And this is somehow okay.

 

[jar2574]

He was a disaster for his country. But in what sense does Germany have "better" leaders? Morally better? Sure. Hard to argue with that. More important in their impact on contemporaries? Now that's hard to suggest. Hitler killed more people than Barbarossa ruled.

Better in the sense of not leading Germany to utter ruin. I think Hitler was an abject failure. Not just morally. But as a leader. He didn't accomplish his goals. He left his nation in ruins. So almost any German leader could qualify as "better" for Germany in my book. Maybe not "better" in the sense of Civ IV, (which wants to pick famous leaders, not just effective ones,) but in the sense of actual accomplishments for Germany.

Hitler's failures, combined with his immorality, make him an unattractive choice in my book.

But did Russia become a superpower because of Stalin? Industrialisation rates in the 1930s were comparable to those under NEP or in late Tsarist Russia. And Stalin turned the USSR from a massive net exporter of grain into a country that could barely break even. Moreover, many of the arguments against the economic rationality of the Holocaust also apply in the case of Stalin's policies. Those killed were the country's best and brightest, those who had been able to succeed under competitive conditions. I remember reading an account of a Russian village which first received electrical power in the 1920s. The electrical power was the work of an entrepreneurial miller. In the 1930s he was deported as a kulak, and the village reverted to candles.

Russia always had the potential to be a superpower. In another thread, I pointed out that British concern over Russia's power led to the Crimean War in the 1850s. And German concern about Russia before WWI definately played a role in the start of the war. So I wouldn't credit Stalin with making something out of nothing.

In fact, I would be happy to argue that Stalin was a bad leader, and that Russia's experiment with communism was disastrous. Imagine a world where Russia had industrialized gradually and used its people and resources more efficiently. Russia may not have rivaled the USA militarily for as long, but perhaps the outcome of that arms race was inevitable. Or perhaps under a different system Russia would have created a sustainable military that rivaled the USA.

I was only pointing out that Stalin was on the winning side of the war and that the USSR did become a superpower, while Hitler lost the war and led Germany into irrelevance as a world power. So that provides at least a little justification for leaving Stalin in and Hitler out.

I'd be perfectly content with a game that left them both out. I don't think they aided their people in the long run.

But I wouldn't be insulted by a game with either of them. They can be justified using various arguments. I just think that Firaxis decision to leave out Hitler is ok because there are leaders who better served Germany.

 

[Giaur]

Amazing how a comment like this can be made without realization of the hypocricy involved in it.

You think Hitlers actions to be criminal

Hitler tried to eliminate all rememberance of the jews by burning books

Firaxis doesn't acknowledge his accomplishments to keep people from thinking about how they are a plausible way to run a government successfully...

Yet you think Firaxis is heroic for keeping a leader out who isn't universally liked but nevertheless important and infuencial (basicly burning books.)

Frase 'war criminal' in certain online dictionary means someone who for example murders prisoners of war and in my feeling cannot be divided into 'war' and 'criminal'. And actions of Hitler are facticial, which history will remember. I don't think Hitler was a 'war criminal'. He was.

You have an advantage cause I cannot usually evaluate if someone is sarkastic. I'm not English. So I won't comment the last part.
... actually I cannot even understand the meaning of your words

I'm not hypocrit. I would, if I had bought an expansion. But perhaps you meant sth different. If you explain why I'm hyprocit, I would be very thankful ...

 

[supersoulty]

Better in the sense of not leading Germany to utter ruin. I think Hitler was an abject failure. Not just morally. But as a leader. He didn't accomplish his goals. He left his nation in ruins. So almost any German leader could qualify as "better" for Germany in my book. Maybe not "better" in the sense of Civ IV, (which wants to pick famous leaders, not just effective ones,) but in the sense of actual accomplishments for Germany.

Hitler's failures, combined with his immorality, make him an unattractive choice in my book.

Do you seriously not realize the irony of a man who has Napoleon as his avatar saying these things?

 

[jar2574]

Do you seriously not realize the irony of a man who has Napoleon as his avatar saying these things?

Do you seriously think that Napolean and Hitler cannot be differentiated? Were you joking or are you ignorant?

Regardless, Napolean has nothing to do with this discussion. I simply said that there other choices to pick for leaders of Germany. In the poll, an option that said "there are better leaders" would have been useful.

I never said that Napolean and Hitler must or mustn't be in the game. I never claimed that Napolean was the best choice for France.

So I'm not sure whether your question was a joke, made out of ignorance, or simply off-topic.

 

[Atropos]

Better in the sense of not leading Germany to utter ruin. I think Hitler was an abject failure. Not just morally. But as a leader. He didn't accomplish his goals. He left his nation in ruins. So almost any German leader could qualify as "better" for Germany in my book. Maybe not "better" in the sense of Civ IV, (which wants to pick famous leaders, not just effective ones,) but in the sense of actual accomplishments for Germany.

Hitler's failures, combined with his immorality, make him an unattractive choice in my book.

As Soulty pointed out, this (the failure, not the immorality) can be said of other "great" leaders, including Napoleon. Nor did, for example, Barbarossa accomplish his goals, as he failed to avert the long-term decline in central authority in Germany.

Hitler was a disastrous leader for all concerned, including, ultimately, himself. I'm just not sure why this justifies his exclusion.

I was only pointing out that Stalin was on the winning side of the war and that the USSR did become a superpower, while Hitler lost the war and led Germany into irrelevance as a world power. So that provides at least a little justification for leaving Stalin in and Hitler out.

Stalin's reign ended on a more successful note than Hitler's - although the circumstances of that end, dying slowly on the floor of his apartment while his disciples plotted to unravel his dubious work, makes me think that the contrast is not too marked. Perhaps that quasi-success is Firaxis's justification. If so, I'm cool with it. But I don't think so. The inclusion of Napoleon argues against it.

I think that the subtext of the decision to include Stalin but not Hitler, at least as it will be interpreted by some players, is that Stalin is socially acceptable but Hitler is not. This offends me morally.

You may remember that, before the announcement of Warlords, one of the threads on this site suggested that Stalin would never be back because of the same reasons that kept Hitler out.

My position: both out, or both in. That goes for Mao as well.

 

[jar2574]

As Soulty pointed out, this (the failure, not the immorality) can be said of other "great" leaders, including Napoleon.

Hitler was a disastrous leader for all concerned, including, ultimately, himself. I'm just not sure why this justifies his exclusion.

Most of the leaders in the game did not lead their country to destruction.

So why is Napolean in the game, but not Hitler? Perhaps the scope of Hitler's failure far outweighs the scope of Napolean's. You yourself pointed out the level of destruction in post-war Germany was so great that many Germans thought they had been the victims of the war.

Perhaps WWII and the Holocaust were such destructive events that Hitler's failures appear to be greater. Casualties in Napolean's war pale in comparison, and Napolean didn't murder millions of his own people for reasons of racial hatred.

And perhaps Hitler offered no positive contributions to humanity, while Napolean did institute positive reforms.

I think what it comes down to is the people of the country involved. Most Germans don't want to be associated with Hitler. Fewer French would mind being associated with Napolean. If a nationality really doesn't want to be represented by a certain individual, I think that probably affects the game designers decisions.

Stalin's reign ended on a more successful note than Hitler's - although the circumstances of that end, dying slowly on the floor of his apartment while his disciples plotted to unravel his dubious work, makes me think that the contrast is not too marked. Perhaps that quasi-success is Firaxis's justification. If so, I'm cool with it. But I don't think so. The inclusion of Napoleon argues against it.

I think that the subtext of the decision to include Stalin but not Hitler, at least as it will be interpreted by some players, is that Stalin is socially acceptable but Hitler is not. This offends me morally.

You may remember that, before the announcement of Warlords, one of the threads on this site suggested that Stalin would never be back because of the same reasons that kept Hitler out.

My position: both out, or both in. That goes for Mao as well.

I wouldn't have a problem with both in or both out. As I said, I think that Hitler can be justified via some arguments.

For me personally, I think that better leaders are available to represent Germany. I view Hitler as a failure, both as a leader and as a person. If they replaced Stalin for the same reasons that wouldn't bug me.

--------------

By the way, I forgot to thank you for your extensive earlier response regarding Stalin's ideology.

Most of my views on Stalin as a thinker came from a book called From Dawn to Decadence, which is an account of Western thought and culture. The author was extremely critical of Stalin, viewing him as nothing more than a thug.

It appears that there are contradicting authorities on the subject, and as with many things, Stalin's genius (or lack thereof) is probably endlessly debatable.