Should Hitler be in the game?

[HawkeyeGS]

Where is the "I would prefer to roll myself up in cotton woll and pretend there is no world outside my bedroom door"? Some people are obviously attracted to this line of thought.

 

[Kushluk]

Yes.

Why? Becuase Machiavelli explained to us how leadership can be about ends not means. Hitler is the end product of this reasoning, the most extreme of the amoral leaders. Ghandi, perhaps the total other end of the spectrum is included, so why not mix in the good with the bad? It's not like we only have moral leaders now, right? Both Chinese leaders were pretty despotic.

This same line of reasoning goes for Biological Weapons (like it or not, the Nukes of now and the future), Forced religious conversion, religious cleansing, ethnic cleansing, Terrorisim, etc.

 

[Spartan117]

first of all "proper payment for a job" is all opinion...

but anyway it is better to have a little amount of money then no money.. but then again that is my opinion

but the real question is should hitler be in the game civ...???

morals are opinion and based on people's environment
there is no absolute right or wrong, nor good and evil...it is all opinion..

 

[Sharule]

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. 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.
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.
Just because a leader makes a difference, doesnt qualify them. Czar Nicholas II made a difference for his country, but I dont think anyone would call him a great leader.

 

[Truronian]

All the leaders currently in the game have one thing in common, they left their country more powerful when they died/stepped down. Hitler did not, and therefore should not be in the game.

 

[sand]

the way i see it the main reason they don't include it is this, designers wouldn't mind including him if asked, marketers would since there only campaign could be get civ4 and kill hitler, producers wouldn't want it either.

offcourse in other games which don't change the course of history so much could possibly have him in, but in this imagine hitler founding judaism them being friendly with ghandi stalin ,churchill, rosevelt. people would be angry.

also why is vicoria a mass murderer.

 

[Nefairius]

It seems to me that the question shouldn't be the inclusion of Hitler, but rather the justification of the other two mass-murderers par-excellence in the 20th century (Stalin & Mao). Both of whom killed tens of millions. Stalin, in particular I object the most to, and strongly disagree that he left the Soviet Union in a better position at all. The Soviets were in no position to do anything after the war, and their state was left horrifically scarred and vulnerable. The fool, in his paranoia killed tens of thousands of invaluable educated engineers and scientists. He liquidated half the 80,000-strong officer corp., placed idiots in charge of the armies who led them to destruction, and only relenting at the eave of utter defeat. All the while, the gulags worked millions of "dissidents" to death in useless projects in remote Siberia. yeah. Real progressive fellow eh?

This idea that he left Russia a superpower is rubbish. Left it in near ruin is more like.

Or let's take Mao here, his brilliant leap forward nearly ruined China, and his so-called cultural revolution was again devastating for China. Any positive influence he might have had is quite paltry compared to his failings.

I don't understand how out of the extraordinarily lengthy history of China, they chose Mao over the hundreds of other important, and vastly more successful leaders.

At any rate, it seems to me that the philosophical opposition to Hitler’s inclusion needs to also be applied to other leaders as well.

 

[Truronian]

It seems to me that the question shouldn't be the inclusion of Hitler, but rather the justification of the other two mass-murderers par-excellence in the 20th century (Stalin & Mao). Both of whom killed tens of millions. Stalin, in particular I object the most to, and strongly disagree that he left the Soviet Union in a better position at all. The Soviets were in no position to do anything after the war, and their state was left horrifically scarred and vulnerable. The fool, in his paranoia killed tens of thousands of invaluable educated engineers and scientists. He liquidated half the 80,000-strong officer corp., placed idiots in charge of the armies who led them to destruction, and only relenting at the eave of utter defeat. All the while, the gulags worked millions of "dissidents" to death in useless projects in remote Siberia. yeah. Real progressive fellow eh?

This idea that he left Russia a superpower is rubbish. Left it in near ruin is more like.

Or let's take Mao here, his brilliant leap forward nearly ruined China, and his so-called cultural revolution was again devastating for China. Any positive influence he might have had is quite paltry compared to his failings.

I don't understand how out of the extraordinarily lengthy history of China, they chose Mao over the hundreds of other important, and vastly more successful leaders.

At any rate, it seems to me that the philosophical opposition to Hitler’s inclusion needs to also be applied to other leaders as well.

Personally I would much rather see Lenin in for Russia than Stalin if they need a modern leader, because it was more through his work than Stalin's that Russia became a viable world power.

As for Mao, it is undeniable that he rescued China as a nation from a modern age rut, even if his methods were less than perfect.

 

[azzaman333]

The Soviets were in no position to do anything after the war, and their state was left horrifically scarred and vulnerable.

Yet after WWII, USA's biggest worry was the powerful USSR.

 

[BCLG100]

Personally I would much rather see Lenin in for Russia than Stalin if they need a modern leader, because it was more through his work than Stalin's that Russia became a viable world power.

As for Mao, it is undeniable that he rescued China as a nation from a modern age rut, even if his methods were less than perfect.

i disagree, Lenin gave Russia Communism but it was Stalin that industrialised it and essentially made it into the beginnings of a world power.

 

[azzaman333]

And if you actually expected Hitler to be in the game, you're very naive.

 

[AndersenDK]

Yet after WWII, USA's biggest worry was the powerful USSR.

Yeah because of their massive army Which anyways in many ways was a lot weaker than the US Army.

The russians was quite good to cover their problems from the outside world.

 

[Depravo]

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.
Just because a leader makes a difference, doesnt qualify them. Czar Nicholas II made a difference for his country, but I dont think anyone would call him a great leader.

Moctezuma and Napoleon's careers ended in utter defeat as well. To judge Hitler from the situation at his death is ridiculous. The Nazis would hardly be so controversial if they'd been the political equivalent of the Keystone Kops.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

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.

Though I am an adult now, I started playing Civ way back when Civ2 came out. Though I grant you that the newer Civ games are far more advanced than their predecessors, they were still quite complex. But they really have a knack for that kind of thing. When a new game comes out they all rush to buy it, and in a few weeks time, they are masters at it. Remember that game for Super Nintendo, "Zelda: A Link to the Past"? I got that game shortly after it came out, and beat it within a few weeks. Man I don't even remember how old I was when I got that game, quite young. BTW I'm 19 now, just to give you a little more perspective.

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.

You greatly underestimate the capacity of the younger generations, though immature at times, they do understand the difference between right and wrong, but they still test the boundaries, because hey, they're kids!

I voted "yes, ... because he had a hell of an impact on history." Though his was a dark chapter in history, it is also an essential part of history. He had a major hand in shaping the way the world is today. Also, around the age of 12 or 13, I read (which is astounding, even moreso at that age, because I hate reading) William L. Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of Adolf Hitler". Remarkable insight. A bit lengthy, but it provides, I believe, a full spectrum with regards to Hitler.

 

[garric]

Jewish influence prevents him from joining the pantheon. We have Stalin who has killed way more people than Hitler has, yet no one seems to mind.

 

[caitlinm]

Stalin was racist, but when he starved millions of people, it was part of a plan to make Russia run better. (Albeit, a bad plan.) Hitler sent people to death camps because of hatred, not because it served a purpose beyond genocide. There is a difference as far as I'm concerned. It could've been Christians that he exterminated, it makes no difference. It's not "Jewish influence."

 

[Spartan117]

stalin had purges and sent hundreds of thousands of people to forced labor camps...look at my previous posts on this thread about hitler and what he did for Germany

 

[The Q-Meister]

All the leaders currently in the game have one thing in common, they left their country more powerful when they died/stepped down. Hitler did not, and therefore should not be in the game.

Good point. But what about Napoleon? Or even Churchill for that matter? Victorious or not, when Churchill stepped down, England no longer had the same hold on its world empire that they did before and would shortly lose almost all of it. With Napoleon, France was defeated and Paris occupied at the time that Napoleon was finally defeated for the 2nd time.

Montezuma also led his nation and even his people to utter destruction when he died. Montezuma is probably the worst leader of all time as far as the Civilization franchise is concerned. Yes, even if we include Hitler. At least the Germans were able to survive as a soveriegn people and eventually become an independent state; can't say that about the Aztecs.

 

[The Q-Meister]

As I stated previously, I have absolutely no problem with the two German leaders chosen - they are solid choices. However, as horrible as Hitler was, and he was atrocious, he did lead the Germany to its greatest height of power at it has ever seen, and most likely, will ever reach. I think that alone is worthy of strong consideration, though I do understand why this is controversial.

I completely disagree with the whole "but teenagers but play this game!!" Give me a break. So teenagers have to be hidden from the view of Adolf Hitler? Must the history books also be rewritten and censored? I don't know what world everyone else is leaving in, but I think teenagers nowadays have been exposed to INFINITELY worse things in video games/movies/TV/magazines/ etc etc etc than a picture and historical snippet of Adolf Hitler.

Teenagers should be not ignorant of history and I think NOT including a historical leader because if might offend teenagers is a really weak argument.

That is not to say however that there are aren't any OTHER argument, better arguments, for not having Hitler in the game, such as the game being banned in Germany, among other European nations and the fact that when someone says for example, "Mao" the average person's response is (if you're lucky) "uhh, that Chinese dude who led a revolution right?" But if you say to the average person, "Hitler' immediatly images of war, the Holocaust and concentration camps show up.

That's the difference. It may be bias, but Hitler is considered, particularly in the Western World, where most of the market is, to be much more offending than Stalin, Mao, or anyone else.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Please stop with all this "well leader X wasn't so bad.."

Look, if the leader we're talking about isn't named Ghandi, there is a 99.9% chance that leader is guilty of SOME heinous act or another: wars of aggression, genocide, killing innocent people, slavery; having slaves or permitting slaves during your time in power, imprisoning people simply for having the wrong opinions or looking like the "enemy".

Virtually every leader is Civ IV, with the exception of Ghandi and MAYBE 1 or 2 others that escape me, is guilty of one of these heinous acts mentioned above.

There are no saints in Civ IV I'm afraid, only shades of grey, and in some cases, dark, dark grey.