Should Hitler be in the game?

[Aldarad]

Hitler is the most famous leader Germany has every had. Maybe they do not like it because he did evil things, but that is history, part of their history. It is no use ignoring that or trying to erase something from history. You cannot have Germany without Hitler as its leader. It just does not make sense. And once again they could add an option to disable him for whoever feels offended by Hitler. No one has convinced me yet that there should not be Hitler in Civilisation...

The most famous American president is Nixon. Fame isnt enough if you also are a big failure.

 

[Depravo]

The most famous American president is Nixon. Fame isnt enough if you also are a big failure.

Excuse me? I think it's a safe bet Washington, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Kennedy and Reagan among others are 'more famous', but it's impossible to measure. With Hitler, there's no question. Virtually everyone knows (or thinks they know) who Hitler was. He's in the Jesus league of name-recognition.

 

[Aldarad]

Ok,ok. I still stand with that he was a failure. Germany is represented by two competent leaders, no reason to add Hitler.

 

[Sohan]

Fame is useful, but not the most imortant aspect of a leader. It's the quality of leadership that matters most, and one must question whether a potential leader had quality. Charisma I'll give to Hitler, but aside from that, he lacked the skills displayed by every single other leader already in the game.

Besides, everyone knows Otto von Bismarck and Frederick the Elector, or Frederick the Great, are far better leaders for the German civilization than Hitler. At least the others made Prussia/Germany powerful. Hitler weakened it forevermore.

 

[Keaton]

If I were in charge of Firaxis, I'd chose the "Let's not go there" option.

 

[Depravo]

Well (again), the inclusion of Moctezuma and Napoleon would suggest otherwise. Both of them led their respective cultures to bitter defeat. In the Aztecs' case Ahuitzotl would be a far better contender if 'leaving it better than you found it' was the deciding factor. Name-recognition and maybe precedent from Civ1 was clearly more important though.

Christ, we might think of Frederick as a nutjob today if that Czar hadn't died on cue and he hadn't been able to get peace with Russia.

 

[Red Door]

Hitler is the most famous leader Germany has every had. Maybe they do not like it because he did evil things, but that is history, part of their history. It is no use ignoring that or trying to erase something from history. You cannot have Germany without Hitler as its leader. It just does not make sense. And once again they could add an option to disable him for whoever feels offended by Hitler. No one has convinced me yet that there should not be Hitler in Civilisation...

It makes plenty of sense. Hitler is an awful, awful man. So were a lot of Civilization leaders, and none of them should be included. But how can you possible argue that a man who killed 14 million of his own people be in the game? And this works for Stalin as well. Really, mod him in there if you want to see him so bad.

No one is trying to erase history with not including him, they are trying to be as non-offensive as possible to Gypsies, Jews, Catholics, Communists, and Homosexuals, the people who Hitler opressed.

 

[Sohan]

Except even after Napoleon's defeat, France remained as powerful as it had been when Napoleon inherited it. Napoleon also left a legacy that helped France recover and grow stronger later under Napoleon III. With Hitler, Germany never recovered to its prior strength.

Although, I'll concede the point of Montezuma. His civilization deteriorated very rapidly after his reign. Nonetheless, I do recall him winning more or less. At great cost, but it was a victory. It's mostly 'cause of disease that in the long term nothing was gained and a lot was lost.

Still... I see your point. I'm reconsidering the whole "Hitler made German civilization weaker" argument.

 

[Rod]

Hello,

besides the philosophical and historical debates about the impact of Hitler on the history of world and Germany it is simply forbidden to display any Nazi-Symbols for entertainment in Germany.

Even as Civilization is more educational then Shooters or Racing Games it is still a game.
The display and use of the swastika, the SS-Runes, Hitler itself and many more Nazi-symbols is only legal for educational purposes in Germany and even then with strict limitations. (as an example you may lend "My struggle" from libraries only if you can prove that you need this book for scientific reasons)

Castle Wolfenstein was rightly forbidden during its days and existed only in the pirated version.

As you can imagine Firaxis would never even think about offending the German Cencorboard with including Hitler in their games. It simply makes no sense. As Germany is the second strongest market in term of selling CIV IV so Firaxis can also not ignore it, like they ignore the Chinese Position towards Mao (he is not that popular with the leading party of China nowadays, you know).

But I may calm all you Hitler's fans down by mentioning that there was a Hitler-Mod in CivIII and there certainly will be a Hitler-Mod in CivIV as long as the crowd cries long enough for it.

best regards
Rudi

 

[Ocelot]

Hitler was bad, no doubt about it.

But then again, we have Montezuma who made a religious/political practice out of ripping people's hearts out and drinking their blood as part of bizarre public sacrifices. We also have Genghis Khan who was a barbarian, Alexander the Great who killed thousands upon thousands, etc. So while Hitler was a devil, no doubt about it, it isn't like he'd be the first human monster to be in a Civ game.

Besides, I personally think it's a good idea because playing this game and the ones that came before gave me a new appreciation and respect for history and a wanting to learn why these leaders were as famous/infamous as they're portrayed. So in that regard, yes, I think Hitler should be in the game.

And hey, if nothing else, just imagine the good feeling you'll get when you're playing Roosevelt and you get to kick Hitler's heiney over and over again.

O.

 

[BearMan]

it is simply forbidden to display any Nazi-Symbols for entertainment in Germany.

Now that is ilogical lawmaking at it's peak .
(In a country that practice freedom of speach that is, There are for sure dictatorial countries that are worse off).

 

[Bastian-Bux]

BearMan, it WILL be illogical once Germany has come to terms with its past (and once everyone and his granny stops to rub it into their faces). And then this laws will probably be abolished.
But till then its only logical: its an unsolved and major problem, and allowing neo-nazi groups to use this symbols openly would damage the reputation of Germany even more, cost a lot of many 8due to not sold cars and other products) and so on. So its just logical to avoid this problems by forbidding the symbols.
Its logical, though maybe not very "liberal". But mind you, last time Germany was liberal enough to allow those symbols and the ideology behind it it ended with 50 million people dead, and Germany destroyed. Even today german politicians don't want to risk to have to pay this price for "giving more freedom of speech".

 

[BearMan]

BearMan, it WILL be illogical once Germany has come to terms with its past

Nah, Now it is illogical and emotional, when they come to terms with its past, it will only be illogical.

allowing neo-nazi groups to use this symbols openly

It is fully possible to deny these groups their symbol without having such a wide law that bans computer games. Sweden, for example, does not allow the symbol on clothing or flags, but Wolfenstein and other computer games are allowed.

But mind you, last time Germany was liberal enough to allow those symbols and the ideology behind it it ended with 50 million people dead, and Germany destroyed. Even today german politicians don't want to risk to have to pay this price for "giving more freedom of speech".

Liberal laws had very little to do with nazist taking over germany, as I recall it.

 

[necrolyte]

Nah, Now it is illogical and emotional, when they come to terms with its past, it will only be illogical.

You still can't mention the Armenian genocide in Turkey without needing to make your way to the US embassy or risk death, Rumanians refuse to even consider the possibility that they had a role in the Holocaust, Americans still think they were the good guys against the Indians, and Japan still considers Nanking a minor incident. As far as recognizing major genocides goes, Germany is far ahead

Monctezuma was hardly incompetent in the way Hitler was btw. True, he was confused by the coming of the Spanish. However, Hitler's decisions were largely responsible for Germany's loss of the war, yet plague was what knocked the poor Aztecs out..

 

[Rod]

To be honest it will take at least one generation more before Germany can come to terms with its past. And it is true that some citizen of some countries rub it into our faces more then others.

It is a fact that US and UK are to some extent quite unpopular in Germany and that merely, because they are using the crimes of the Holocaust as a diplomatical instrument and do not let this past lay down (as it seems from a German point of view). Russia in opposite is celebrating its rightful victory and the conquest of Berlin every year and that its. Besides Russia really fought like nobody else and sacrificed many lives for its victory so nobody can have hard feelings, that they are celebrating now. They simply deserve it. (again from a German point of view)

The fact that the forbidding of symbols and political parties (yes, that is possible in Germany) is not completely fitting to a Freedom-of-Speech - Policy is not unknown in Germany. But we ourself think it is the most effective way to handle this problem. There exists an ongoing debate in Germany, whether the Federal Republic is established enough to tolerate extrem right-wing or left-wing (also the Communistic Party is forbidden in Germany) political organization, but so far nobody wants to risk it - and the people do not claim it.

As the majority of us Germans still believe in Order more than in Freedom we are quite comfortable that the Democratic Rights are not universal in our country. The Freedom of Speech ends when it is about political extremities. The Freedom of Religion ends when it is about the education of children (domain of state and strictly secular) or political influence (e.g. Friday Prayers that are used for agitation) and so on.

So, when we prospered more or less the last 60 years, why should we destabilize our state just to allow Hitler to be part of a video game ?

THAT would be illogical

 

[Depravo]

BearMan, it WILL be illogical once Germany has come to terms with its past (and once everyone and his granny stops to rub it into their faces). And then this laws will probably be abolished.

I don't think it will be abolished under anything like current political circumstances thanks largely to the mentality we've seen in places in this thread.

"I think we should be able to depict Hitler / the swastika / Myra Hindley / Daz Sampson in a politically-neutral strategy game!"

"OMG! HATER ROFL"

But till then its only logical: its an unsolved and major problem...

Far from logical mate. The potential exploitation of the swastika is a trivial problem next to the creeping assault on free expression going on across the Western world right now.

... and allowing neo-nazi groups to use this symbols openly would damage the reputation of Germany even more ... So its just logical to avoid this problems by forbidding the symbols. But mind you, last time Germany was liberal enough to allow those symbols and the ideology behind it it ended with 50 million people dead, and Germany destroyed.

See above.
"You can't shout Fire in a crowded theatre, therefore you shouldn't be exposed to inconvenient features of recent European history" is NOT LOGICAL.

This attitude, not the prospect of an animatronic Hitler, is precisely why Germany still cannot escape the legacy of WW2. Surely you have more faith in your nation than to believe a CGI Fuhrer has some weird galvanic power over German customers, causing them to shapeshift into naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews.

Even today german politicians don't want to risk to have to pay this price for "giving more freedom of speech".

Says more about the spinelessness of most politicians than anything.

 

[necrolyte]

I STILL want to see a game where "Hitler founds Judaism"

 

[The Conquerer22]

Fame is useful, but not the most imortant aspect of a leader. It's the quality of leadership that matters most, and one must question whether a potential leader had quality. Charisma I'll give to Hitler, but aside from that, he lacked the skills displayed by every single other leader already in the game.

Besides, everyone knows Otto von Bismarck and Frederick the Elector, or Frederick the Great, are far better leaders for the German civilization than Hitler. At least the others made Prussia/Germany powerful. Hitler weakened it forevermore.

Hitler weakened Germany? He might of screwed them over for his villanouse plot to take over Europe(and later the world), but who was winning WWII befor he(and I admit) stupidly attacked Russia,and Pearl Harbor(not to bring up a weak point).

 

[The Conquerer22]

It makes plenty of sense. Hitler is an awful, awful man. So were a lot of Civilization leaders, and none of them should be included. But how can you possible argue that a man who killed 14 million of his own people be in the game? And this works for Stalin as well. Really, mod him in there if you want to see him so bad.

No one is trying to erase history with not including him, they are trying to be as non-offensive as possible to Gypsies, Jews, Catholics, Communists, and Homosexuals, the people who Hitler opressed.

Hitler was a Catholic you moron(and so were a few other Nazis), why would he try to opress himself, it wouldnt make any sense.

 

[loki1232]

Can you imagine Hitler's diplomacy lines? Like seriously try to imagine some of them.

Yeah hitler is up there with Jesus.
Also up there with the Beatles.
And Osama Bin Laden.