Should Hitler be in the game?

[naterator]

gianluca, if you keep making this face , it'll stick like that.

 

[Atropos]

Just because you feel guilty about what happened to the Jews does not mean you should ignore the suffering of the Arabs of Palestine, which is also a direct result of WWII. The cowardice of the Allies, a direct result of guilt and grief over the Holocaust, as well as political activism on the part of religious demagogues, caused the global political establishment to ignore the issue of Palestine in favor of the Zionist lobby and its agenda to establish a Jewish state, namely Isreal, essentially giving carte blanche to wholesale political disenfranchisement of millions of people in the process. How is that justice?

Uh...the establishment of Israel was arguably an act of injustice, but in what sense is this comparable to the Holocaust?

 

[gianluca790]

Do you actually beileve this rubbish you tell yourself?

I mean any sane person can see that vietnam is not at all similar to the holocaust.

Innocent civilians died in both the Holocaust and Vietnam, regardless of politically biased reports to the contrary. Napalm and Zyklon B are ultimately the same in this respect.

Can you give me one example of the U.S trying to ethnically cleanse the vietnemese?

The My Lai Massacre?

And its the same thing with the atomic bomb. They were difficult acts but set aside your political bent and you can see they have nothing to do with holocaust.

The Atomic Bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima ushured in the Atomic Age, with the result that a lot of bad things happened, Chernobyl and the threat of nuclear terrorism being two of the most pertinent examples. Do not tell me that racist American bigots did not exult at the carnage caused among Japanese civilians by the Atomic Bomb, because I will not believe you.

I see you dont like bushes policies but can you honestly compare any of the U.S's administration to hitlers?

Hitler was mad. So is Bush. Hitler believed wholeheartedly in Fascism just as Bush believes wholeheartedly in Democracy. Both might be considered dogmatic and fanatical with regard to defending their own little pet philosophies, namely Fascism for Hitler and Democracy for Bush. Extremist ideology in political discourse is not just a frame of mind, it is a mental illness common among prejudiced people who lack critical thinking skills. Both Bush and Hitler are Christians, although the spirituality of Hitler was more of an atavistic cult-like throwback to the old Gnostic Neopagan ideology which influenced the more esoteric branches of European Medieval Christianity. Both are Fundamentalists who believe that their ideology is THE ideology, not just AN ideology. Both launched a preemptive first strike in a war using specious reasoning and questionable factual evidence to back up their reasoning for starting the conflict. Both are political demagogues who used propaganda to advance a radical agenda, regardless of who it hurt, or who it antagonised. At least Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. were smart enough to make things look legal. Oops. Scratch that. Nixon got caught, so I guess that leaves Ronnie Ray-Gun, the advocate of Star Wars, and George the First, the one who should have taken care of Saddam Hussein in the first place, but didn't, ultimately causing the current problems that the US is having in Iraq at the moment. Hardly paragons of virtue, if you ask me. The Kennedys are no better, regardless of ideology. Then again, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and Washington was a slave owner. People like that are not to be regarded as good.

Please... Get informed! And its not political reletism. To compare any of these scenarios in the same light would require alot of manipulating of the facts which you would seem fond of.

You are what you say others are. You just do not want to admit it. You are only what others say you are if you allow them to say something against you.

 

[gianluca790]

Uh...the establishment of Israel was arguably an act of injustice, but in what sense is this comparable to the Holocaust?

The Arab-Israeli Conflict that resulted from the creation of Israel up until the Intifada protesting the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza is comparable to the Holocaust. How many Palestinians have died since the establishment of Israel and the start of the Intifada protesting the forced annexation of Gaza and the West Bank, the area of which might be considered one big concentration camp, not a viable Palestinian state?

 

[Atropos]

The Arab-Israeli Conflict that resulted from the creation of Israel up until the Intifada protesting the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza is comparable to the Holocaust. How many Palestinians have died since the establishment of Israel and the start of the Intifada protesting the forced annexation of Gaza and the West Bank, the area of which might be considered one big concentration camp, not a viable Palestinian state?

I'll wager it's less than 10 million, which is the conventional number given for victims of the Holocaust (of which 6 million were Jews).

Nor were Israelis the only ones at fault in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Warning: Thread Merger in progress

WE have achieved Thread merger repeat, Thread merger has been achieved... in a stunning reversal of ???'s Law: a thread that Started on the subject of Hitler has now drifted to another subject.

We believe this is a temporary fluctuation however, ranting is scheduled to return to Hitler in 5.. 4...

 

[sirford]

Hitler should be remembered as a historical reference as the embodyment of pure racism and genocide. He should not be able to "entertain" us in such a fashion.

 

[kharas]

For the reasons I have already given, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not comparable to the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the destruction of a population that could not conceivably have posed any threat. The decision to drop the bomb was taken out of a (perhaps misguided) belief that the result would be to shorten the war.

Atropos, you say that Hitler must not be in game because he killed innocent and threatless people...

Ok but in the allies side there are examples of same thing...
what about Dresde bombing??? The Britanic War Museum have the video of the city being bombed... No one shoot backfire, even pistols and guns were not "active", and moreover, they were bombing the FIREMEN cars that were going to help from nearly cities...
Was Dresde a threat????

Or by the holocaust, what about concentration camps in USA during the war??? Japanese do you heard about them???
Or the same camps in Israel, to murder palestinians???

And there are more to be considered, there are a few pack of writers that do not believe in holocaust (i am not saying they are right) but nobody negates Stalin's massacres, and Stalin is part of the expansion (and in fact, of the first civ game).

Hitler was not evil, he was archevil, and he is the archtype of political madness. No person generates a higher level of hate over his name like him, that may be "not positive" but is great. Also, he is the only that was nearly to "win by WORLD domination" if that is not a merit to be in game then what?.

I do not like Hitler, because he generates so much hate (by holocaust and WWII) over Germany and Prussia, that the only Bismarckian (see my avatar) in the modern Germany is their name and their territory (part of it). Hitler kills Prussian culture by losing the war. Also, he was not german, but rule in Germany and using nationalism as ideology...

I like to fight against Hitler, and obligates himself to suicidate again, nowin game...

And, is only a game, those who play with Hitler (if he were included) are nazis, what if after that they play with Stalin, are comunist now... and in a third game use Roosevelt... now a democrat... is he a "nazi-comunist-democrat"??

And by last argument, is not inteligent to forget the madness of humanity, those who do that are condemned to repeat history, do you want that?

I think that market possibilities were considered over historically correction.

 

[Spartan117]

by having hitler in the game... how does this glorify nazism?!?

 

[sirford]

by having hitler in the game... how does this glorify nazism?!?

well, this is not going to be answered successfully in one sentence, or in ten words, but in an attempt to try to bring meaning to it in such small text, I shall try.

In many geo-polictial terms to be able to portray a person in a game or as in a metaphor of being in another person would be viewed as insult to that person or members of that party/country. The ideaology of a person is extremified to corner a specific value of a person to allow difference between key personal could become dangerously personified as their main attributes. To promote someone in this fashion would be dangerous to a younger mind that has not yet understood the whole meaning of life on this planet in retrospect of their own culture and their xenophobia. It may not be "glorifying" nazism, as nazism is just another polictal party, and translated is the National Socialism German Arbriator Party, or a Socialist party with a dictator could be viewed as an ideological goverment (along with a communistic, or captialistic goverment). But to allow such a man with such distinction across the board as a man of pure wrong and hate in a game that could possibly have an adverse effect on people that maybe easily manipulative to new an different ideology that is considered by the vastly overwhelming majority is wrong and against everything that the rest of humanity is for, the peace and sustanice of the speices of man.

that may have been my greatest hour.

 

[statusperfect]

No. Hitler doesn't impersonate Germany.

 

[Atropos]

Atropos, you say that Hitler must not be in game because he killed innocent and threatless people...

Ok but in the allies side there are examples of same thing...
what about Dresde bombing??? The Britanic War Museum have the video of the city being bombed... No one shoot backfire, even pistols and guns were not "active", and moreover, they were bombing the FIREMEN cars that were going to help from nearly cities...
Was Dresde a threat????

Or by the holocaust, what about concentration camps in USA during the war??? Japanese do you heard about them???
Or the same camps in Israel, to murder palestinians???

And there are more to be considered, there are a few pack of writers that do not believe in holocaust (i am not saying they are right) but nobody negates Stalin's massacres, and Stalin is part of the expansion (and in fact, of the first civ game).

Hitler was not evil, he was archevil, and he is the archtype of political madness. No person generates a higher level of hate over his name like him, that may be "not positive" but is great. Also, he is the only that was nearly to "win by WORLD domination" if that is not a merit to be in game then what?.

I do not like Hitler, because he generates so much hate (by holocaust and WWII) over Germany and Prussia, that the only Bismarckian (see my avatar) in the modern Germany is their name and their territory (part of it). Hitler kills Prussian culture by losing the war. Also, he was not german, but rule in Germany and using nationalism as ideology...

I like to fight against Hitler, and obligates himself to suicidate again, nowin game...

And, is only a game, those who play with Hitler (if he were included) are nazis, what if after that they play with Stalin, are comunist now... and in a third game use Roosevelt... now a democrat... is he a "nazi-comunist-democrat"??

And by last argument, is not inteligent to forget the madness of humanity, those who do that are condemned to repeat history, do you want that?

I think that market possibilities were considered over historically correction.

You seem to have misunderstood me. If either Hitler or Stalin is included, the other should not be excluded on moral grounds. That's all I was saying. Include both on impact grounds, or exclude both on moral grounds, but use a consistent standard.

I then got sidetracked into arguing with someone who seemed to think that the establishment of Israel was a crime comparable to the Holocaust.

 

[Dubai Vol]

OK, I skipped to the end after a few pages, but I think I got the gist of the arguments well enough to post an opinion. Lots of godd logical arguments here, and you're all to be commended; I love a good logical argument.

But in the case of Hitler, there is an emotional factor that must be considered. Logically and morally, Hitler and Stalin may be equivalent, but, fair or not, emotionally they are different. Emotions are real: people are not computers, and logic is not the only consideration.

Lots of people in this thread have said the same thing in different ways. I hope I'm not being too repetitive.

There are lots of other ideas I disagree with in this thread, but I thought that at least for my first post I'd try to keep it on topic! Y'all have a good day.

 

[kharas]

You seem to have misunderstood me. If either Hitler or Stalin is included, the other should not be excluded on moral grounds. That's all I was saying. Include both on impact grounds, or exclude both on moral grounds, but use a consistent standard.

Ok, totally agree with you here. I choice, include both, and game developers already include Stalin, so, impact grounds were their election.

I then got sidetracked into arguing with someone who seemed to think that the establishment of Israel was a crime comparable to the Holocaust.

Sorry for sidetracking. That is my fault, and I think that it derives from skip some pages of thread before posting...

I never said that establishment of Israel was a crime, and by same reason I can not said that is a crime comparable to holocaust...

what I compare with holocaust??? The concentration camps on Israel to murder palestinians, the great mass killing acts of allies and other terrible crimes, et cetera.
Who may think that Israel establishmente is a crime, comparable to holocaust?? Nazis and maybe palestiniajns, I am not nazi nor palestinian...

 

[Atropos]

Kharas, when I said that I got sidetracked into debating someone who compared the establishment of Israel to the Holocaust, I was referring to Gianluca, not you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Depravo]

well, this is not going to be answered successfully in one sentence, or in ten words, but in an attempt to try to bring meaning to it in such small text, I shall try.

In many geo-polictial terms to be able to portray a person in a game or as in a metaphor of being in another person would be viewed as insult to that person or members of that party/country. The ideaology of a person is extremified to corner a specific value of a person to allow difference between key personal could become dangerously personified as their main attributes. To promote someone in this fashion would be dangerous to a younger mind that has not yet understood the whole meaning of life on this planet in retrospect of their own culture and their xenophobia. It may not be "glorifying" nazism, as nazism is just another polictal party, and translated is the National Socialism German Arbriator Party, or a Socialist party with a dictator could be viewed as an ideological goverment (along with a communistic, or captialistic goverment). But to allow such a man with such distinction across the board as a man of pure wrong and hate in a game that could possibly have an adverse effect on people that maybe easily manipulative to new an different ideology that is considered by the vastly overwhelming majority is wrong and against everything that the rest of humanity is for, the peace and sustanice of the speices of man.

that may have been my greatest hour.

My eyes... they bleed!

 

[gianluca790]

well, this is not going to be answered successfully in one sentence, or in ten words, but in an attempt to try to bring meaning to it in such small text, I shall try.

In many geo-polictial terms to be able to portray a person in a game or as in a metaphor of being in another person would be viewed as insult to that person or members of that party/country. The ideaology of a person is extremified to corner a specific value of a person to allow difference between key personal could become dangerously personified as their main attributes. To promote someone in this fashion would be dangerous to a younger mind that has not yet understood the whole meaning of life on this planet in retrospect of their own culture and their xenophobia. It may not be "glorifying" nazism, as nazism is just another polictal party, and translated is the National Socialism German Arbriator Party, or a Socialist party with a dictator could be viewed as an ideological goverment (along with a communistic, or captialistic goverment). But to allow such a man with such distinction across the board as a man of pure wrong and hate in a game that could possibly have an adverse effect on people that maybe easily manipulative to new an different ideology that is considered by the vastly overwhelming majority is wrong and against everything that the rest of humanity is for, the peace and sustanice of the speices of man.

that may have been my greatest hour.

I think that you are overgeneralizing. Not every young person is as gullible or as malleable as you think. I find that your assertion that they could be so easily swayed to be paternalistic. I know a lot of young people who are able to differentiate the general from the specific, and are therefore able to differentiate truth from fiction, good from evil, etc. You might think that the rest of us are a bunch of politically apathetic slobs, but the truth is that we are not.

 

[gianluca790]

But in the case of Hitler, there is an emotional factor that must be considered. Logically and morally, Hitler and Stalin may be equivalent, but, fair or not, emotionally they are different. Emotions are real: people are not computers, and logic is not the only consideration.

False analogy. People who think on an emotional level cannot be considered to be fully capable of intelligent thought, since most emotionally derived thoughts tend to be fairly unintelligent, even trite and stupid at times. Most of the time, as a matter of fact. This is the very reason people like Hitler get elected, because most people tend to think with their little heads as opposed to their big ones. I always ask myself why it is that, if people have been fortunate enough to be born with evolved brains, they chose not to think like an intellectually evolved species. That is the paradox about humanity that has always puzzled me. I know that I might seem detached about this and you might even think I might sound like a cad, a machine or even a space alien. As an intellectual, I consider myself above the emotional sniping and psychological trench warfare that most people decide to become involved in when they are young.

 

[gianluca790]

Surely the makers shouldn't try to please everybody and instead either go the Mickey Mouse route and strip all "bad" people from the game and slap a "any age" rating OR go the Adult route and include all the scumbags and make it 18+ only.

The problem is the either/or Aristotelian mindset of our society, as well as the caution that people have in discussing political topics in correct ways so as not to hurt people's feelings. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have your cake and eat it. You can please some of the people some of the time and most of the people most of the time but you cannot possibly please all of the people all of the time.

 

[gianluca790]

"All" white American protestants are racists?

Now that's a racist comment for you.

Those of us who want Hitler in the game (well...some of us who want Hitler in the game...can't speak for everyone) do so because we believe he had a significant impact on history. Not because we "miss" him, or approve of his actions.

The pot should not call the kettle black. Stooping to insults is childish and trite, because ultimately everyone is a little bit racist, as the musical Avenue Q so succinctly puts it. Not every American is a racist, but bigotry is a defence mechanism that stems from biology, however crazy that may sound. It can be considered the Aristotelian differentiation principle in action, albiet in a more skewered, negative form. Avoid what brings you pain. If a Black man shoots me, I avoid Black men so that I will not be shot. Black people avoid White people for the same reason, because subconsciously they remember American History and they do not want to get lynched by the Klan. It may be wrongheaded, but it is a behavior that is socially, politically and culturally ingrained, due to many years of negative personal experiences on both sides. The movie Crash illustrates this fact quite well. I do not miss Hitler. I do not approve of his actions. I do agree that he had a significant impact on history. I just believe that the fact America built the Atomic Bomb and used it negated any moral superiority they had over Germany because Zyklon B and the Atom Bomb are both weapons of mass destruction, making the actions of Germany and the United States morally equivalent, since innocent civilians died as a result of both inventions. If it harm none, do what thou wilt. The reasoning was not evil, the actions wére evil. If the results are negative, the reasoning cannot be sound. Only positive results matter, unless you believe that people had to learn the lesson of Hitler before they would start cooperating and being nice to each other. Some things are invented for specific reasons and it is those reasons that make those things and the people that invent them evil, stupid and mean. Weapons, war and the proponents of weapons and war are evil, stupid and mean, period.