Should Hitler be in the game?

[Spartan117]

If you check your history, Hitler was a remarkable leader during the late 20s / early 30s. Yes, he went a bit off track (way off track) later but he did manage to turn around a country that was crippled as a result of the limitations placed on it by the allies after WWI. In some ways (and this is probably a stretch), the WWI restrictions could be blamed for WWII.

that was the reason

it caused a weaken germany which ultimattely led to germany going to war

and the stock market crash caused japan to go to war

 

[catbeef]

I'm surprised you're not all crying because theres not enough black units in the game.

prime minister borden pushed through a military service act that caused the conscription crisis of 1917

would you put borden into the game for sending god knows how many young lads to get slaughtered in the trenches?

and maybe to add to the post above..

not to mention, without world war two we would not have half the technological advances we do today, medicine and rocketry for obvbious example.

 

[ZombiVoziKombi]

I like the calamity option, by the way. Except I think you're joking and you're making it too strong for me.

Well, I was initially joking but right about halfway I realized it may be interesting to play this way. So yeah, this would be a cool thing to try

If you check your history, Hitler was a remarkable leader during the late 20s / early 30s. Yes, he went a bit off track (way off track) later but he did manage to turn around a country that was crippled as a result of the limitations placed on it by the allies after WWI.

Possibly... Now I'm no historian, but there's another take on this I read that I find quite compelling. When your country is in deep economic trouble (in part caused by the limitations posed in Versailles, but in late 20s the entire world was in deep economic trouble) it is easy to get to the top by finding a convenient enemy, claming to be a victim and playing hardball. For this you don't necessarily need to be a good leader, just a good manipulator, there is a difference IMHO. With Nazis in power, the German economy turned, but to a large extent thanks to a massive investment in the army (a useless investment unless you go to war), financed by deficit spending covered in good part by looted Jewish property. A few years roll by and Germany has a huge army but is deeply in debt. There is little left to loot at home, so they put the army to use to go plunder most of the rest of Europe. By this token, the early recovery of Germany was superficial, and Nazis were a one-way trouble ticket for all involved from start to end.

 

[ruff_hi]

Possibly... Now I'm no historian, but there's another take on this I read that I find quite compelling. When your country is in deep economic trouble (in part caused by the limitations posed in Versailles, but in late 20s the entire world was in deep economic trouble) it is easy to get to the top by finding a convenient enemy, claming to be a victim and playing hardball. For this you don't necessarily need to be a good leader, just a good manipulator, there is a difference IMHO. With Nazis in power, the German economy turned, but to a large extent thanks to a massive investment in the army (a useless investment unless you go to war), financed by deficit spending covered in good part by looted Jewish property. A few years roll by and Germany has a huge army but is deeply in debt. There is little left to loot at home, so they put the army to use to go plunder most of the rest of Europe. By this token, the early recovery of Germany was superficial, and Nazis were a one-way trouble ticket for all involved from start to end.

Good points! Sort of Civ IV, you build a huge army, get crushed by the support costs and have to go on a pillage / capture city run to get $ to finance your economy.

 

[ZombiVoziKombi]

Good points! Sort of Civ IV, you build a huge army, get crushed by the support costs and have to go on a pillage / capture city run to get $ to finance your economy.

Xactlee

 

[ChristianII]

Heh, thats a pretty good metaphor actually

 

[kristopherb]

CIV is an adult game. I dont think teenagers dare to play such complex and long game. Thus, everything can be added, Hitler, talibans, units as suicide bombers, why not.

We can make the difference between good and bad. And between real life and video game. Hitler would trigger amazing/famous succesion games and scenarios.I voted "yes, because he was great in a way", he can be subject for a good book or video game.

hello im 14 and im playing civ4

 

[Bungholio]

his face would scare people, with his mustache

 

[GenMarshall]

No, Because Hitler was a mass murderer and it would encourage and glorify Nazism.

 

[Kushluk]

umm.. springtime for Hitler in Germany.... Deutchland is happy and gay?

Speaking of which, can I use the pacificsim civic (Jewish state religion of course) plus the gay marriage civic with Hitler or will that shatter reality?
If I were playing as Hitler I'd beeline to Monotheisim.

 

[ChristianII]

Why would it glorify nazism? We can use slave workers, forced labour and draft. Does that glorify them? No. We have Mao, does that glorify communism? No. We have Rosevelt(sp?), does that glorify capitalism? No. To be honest i dont think i would have a problem with seeing him. But since there is no "need" for another german leader and people are so passionate about it then he should probably just be left out.

To salamandra:
"CIV is an adult game. I dont think teenagers dare to play such complex and long game."
Uh, adult game? Im sorry, i started playing civ when i was 11. I am 15 now and still playing. When it is played by pre-teens dont you think teenagers can play it too? :/

 

[BearMan]

Having Stalin in the game does not glorify communism, mass executions, or working camps. Having Hitler in the game is equally correct.
On the other hand, the poll says it all, he should be in the game.

 

[ChristianII]

Having Stalin in the game does not glorify communism, mass executions, or working camps. Having Hitler in the game is equally correct.
On the other hand, the poll says it all, he should be in the game.

My point exactly

Nice sig btw.

 

[FreeTerminus]

Hi I don't think Hitler should be in the game...He was a mass murderer that brought a very large amount of devestation upon humanity. He was psychotic and killed millions upon millions of people in death camps...I just don't think it would be appropriate. Plus, then the game couldn't sell in Germany!

 

[armchairknight]

Here's a question: If this poll had been 'Should Charlemagne be in the game?' do you think the resulting thread would be 17 pages long?

Here's another: Do you think it would spawn subsequent polls that pretty much asked that same question?

I believe that the answers to both questions are no. Hitler on the other hand has done both. This poll shows that 70% of those polled favor placing Hitler in the game, but so far only 342 people have responded to the poll. 333 replies have been posted and this thread has been viewed 6,140 times. To compare and contrast, the poll for 'Which Decade Has the Most CivFanatics?' has 1,611 people polled, 394 replies and has been viewed 18,853 times. The point? Our community has shown more interested in our own age demographics than in whether or not Hitler should be in the game. I believe that our community is a fair reflection of our society and that this makes our reaction worth looking at. This 'eh' level of interest along with the controversy and contention that arise from every discussion I've encountered so far in this forum concerning the late dictator seem to argue against Hitler's inclusion in the game in as far as Civ IV is a commercial venture meant to make a profit. Now if Hitler created more interest and less contention, well then... maybe... who knows? But it seems to me to be a marginal call here. Lots of risk and few rewards. There are other leaders that could easily be included with way more upside and less downside than Hitler.

I think this argument is not so much about Hitler's 'worth' as it is about our reaction to Hitler. For the record, I voted for Hitler's inclusion back in April. If it were just me he'd be in, but it's about serving as many customers as possible with the highest level of satisfaction possible. Right? I just don't think that we as a society want our kids playing as Hitler just yet.

 

[Esox]

If Hitler is in the game, then sooner or later you are going to be faced with a pop-up in which Der Fuhrer asks you to join him and adopt Judaism as your state religion. And if you say no, Hitler the Jewish Fuhrer is going to be "upset that your people have fallen under the sway of a heathen religion."

Not good PR for Firaxis, not good gameplay for many many players, not gonna happen.

 

[Spartan117]

Here's a question: If this poll had been 'Should Charlemagne be in the game?' do you think the resulting thread would be 17 pages long?

Here's another: Do you think it would spawn subsequent polls that pretty much asked that same question?

I believe that the answers to both questions are no. Hitler on the other hand has done both. This poll shows that 70% of those polled favor placing Hitler in the game, but so far only 342 people have responded to the poll. 333 replies have been posted and this thread has been viewed 6,140 times. To compare and contrast, the poll for 'Which Decade Has the Most CivFanatics?' has 1,611 people polled, 394 replies and has been viewed 18,853 times. The point? Our community has shown more interested in our own age demographics than in whether or not Hitler should be in the game. I believe that our community is a fair reflection of our society and that this makes our reaction worth looking at. This 'eh' level of interest along with the controversy and contention that arise from every discussion I've encountered so far in this forum concerning the late dictator seem to argue against Hitler's inclusion in the game in as far as Civ IV is a commercial venture meant to make a profit. Now if Hitler created more interest and less contention, well then... maybe... who knows? But it seems to me to be a marginal call here. Lots of risk and few rewards. There are other leaders that could easily be included with way more upside and less downside than Hitler.
.

just a side note this thread began in april 30 while the other thread you speak of began in like september...and also this is just this thread there are many more like it...so more people have already talked about hitler etc...

 

[Carver]

So this argument still continues after all this time.

Stalin and Mao were successful leaders; they enhanced the power and wealth of their countries. Hitler's administration led to the literal destruction of the German state, the destruction of German industry, and the occupation and partition of the German territory. A government which brings that about has not been successful. Stalin and Mao's administrations were successful; they increased the standard of living for their people (on average) and increased the power and prestige of their nations.

Not only was the Hitler governent a failure in the aggregate, Hitler made numerous mistakes in his personal judgment along the way, such as: not building four engine bombers, insisting on using Germany's jets as bombers rather than as fighters, and invading the Soviet Union in the first place.

 

[Instant_Cereal]

Yeah, and lets throw in Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, and Saddam Hussein while we're at it. What a silly thread and question. More importantly though, it raises the question of why Stalin's in the game. Many can successfully argue he wasn't so nice.

 

[armchairknight]

just a side note this thread began in april 30 while the other thread you speak of began in like september...and also this is just this thread there are many more like it...so more people have already talked about hitler etc...

How many people are discussing American Idol in forums around the net?