Should Hitler be in the game?

[naterator]

In what way did Stalin "represent" the Soviet people? That's my point.

he represented them, as their representative, in war and peace negotiations with other leaders in Moscow, Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam. that much is cut and dry, i've seen the pictures of him + churchill + roosevelt. again, i'm not saying it's right, but he's the leader of a totalitarian dictatorship, so he gets the goodies. that's the benefit of ruthlessly consolidating your power.

2 is precisely my point

oh yeah, i meant to get back to 2, not forget it entirely, 2 being:

2. If the other side in the conflict loses its sense of humanity, that does not mean both should.

you are absolutly right. neither side should, and having it done to you does not excuse you from doing it yourself. but this hasn't really stopped most people from doing it in the past and won't stop people from doing it in the future. but it seems obvious that morality isn't high on the list they used to pick leaders.

 

[Atropos]

he represented them, as their representative, in war and peace negotiations with other leaders in Moscow, Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam. that much is cut and dry, i've seen the pictures of him + churchill + roosevelt. again, i'm not saying it's right, but he's the leader of a totalitarian dictatorship, so he gets the goodies. that's the benefit of ruthlessly consolidating your power.

oh yeah, i meant to get back to 2, not forget it entirely, 2 being:

you are absolutly right. neither side should, and having it done to you does not excuse you from doing it yourself. but this hasn't really stopped most people from doing it in the past and won't stop people from doing it in the future. but it seems obvious that morality isn't high on the list they used to pick leaders.

Stalin was not the "representative" of the Russian people in the sense of having been chosen by the Russian people. That's what I meant.

Your original post suggested that Stalin had a "right" to take Eastern Germany because of the sufferings of the Soviet people. That's like saying that I have a right to Shell''s money because they exploit people in Nigeria.

People have forgotten the laws of war in the past, most of said past being before the laws of war existed (Hague Convention). They may do so in the future; they probably will. The same could be said about, say, religious persecution. That isn't an excuse to do it, nor does it mitigate the actions of someone who does it.

 

[Sohan]

Ask yourself this. Why did they not include tobacco in Civ IV? Then ask yourself this. Why would you dress up as Hitler and start yelling anti-semitic statements down the street?

Edit: I'm not sure what I'm getting at with this. Just sorta popped into my mind.

 

[pjdodd]

Ask yourself this. Why did they not include tobacco in Civ IV?

Perhaps that flippant remark hints at the problem which is the kiddification of games. History is sanitised, cleansed as best possible of the horrors perpetrated; Reality is quietly excised of it's more adult practices and events; Everything is Westernised to some degree; and the whole enterprise is presented in a fluffy manner that frankly leaves the adult gamer feeling cheated.

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.

And to answer the original poll...Yes, Hilter should be in the game. Let all the monsters in, I say.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well tobacco I can see leaving out, while it was a trade good, it wasn't much beyond that

Opium on the other hand is the only drug that a War is named after (at least a war in which the drug dealers forced the other side to surrender)

 

[Armorydave]

Salt and Cotton were more historically significant than Tobacco. I would guess the reason they left it out is because it was not significant until relatively recently when compared to other luxury items and it was nowhere near the most significant commodity ommited (see the two above examples). I guess salt is covered by spices but I think it warrents its own category (and should be +1 health not +1 happiness)

 

[naterator]

Your original post suggested that Stalin had a "right" to take Eastern Germany because of the sufferings of the Soviet people

and i stand by that statement. to quote mel brooks, "it's good to be the king". i'm not saying that he was morally correct, but the soviet union had the right to get what it could for what it paid, and in 1945, there was no bypassing stalin in the soviet union. like loius xiv, he was the state, so when the state gained control of new lands, stalin was by default who was the controller. this fact remains unchanged despite the fact that the actions of stalin himself, especially in the great purge of the 1930's where many generals were killed, led in no small part to the staggering number of casualties the russians suffered. the soviet union lost as many as 10 million soldiers to WWII, far more than any other nation. they also lost mare than 12 million civilians, however the civilian numbers will always be inflated because they include deaths resultant of stalins purges and assorted policies that ranged from criminal to just plain deranged. anyway, when you sit at the table to divide up post war europe, that's 10,000,000 powerful bargaining chips. and although you are totally correct that "Stalin was not the "representative" of the Russian people in the sense of having been chosen by the Russian people.", in fact, we could go a step further and say that neither did he represent "russian" culture or values in any remote way (nor georgian, or any other culture that had been absorbed by the soviet union), but he was the boss, and, right or wrong, he gets to collect on debts owed to his people.

That's like saying that I have a right to Shell''s money because they exploit people in Nigeria.

i don't follow you here, if you were the boss of shell, then yes, you'd get the money for the exploitation, right or wrong. again, stalin was collecting a debt owed to his nation, of which he was the boss. had stalin been a weak leader, then there's a good chance that the soviet union would have gotten considerably less. i understand that the soviet PEOPLE got nothing, but the soviet UNION got a whole lot. i think, atropos, our points of contention come, generally, from the fact that i am arguing strictly from the point of view of the state and leader, whereas you are taking the citizens and morality into account. i in no way fault you for this, of course, but since the original theme of the thread has to do with hitler being in the game, i, for one, don't think good or evil, right or wrong is really a part of the issue, given our choices of leaders available. i don't think anyone is defending hitler or stalin as a good person, but merely a civ-worthy leader. my opinion, anyway.

 

[gianluca790]

(Ich denke, dass die Deutschen Forumbenutzer sehr aergerlich werden, da wir Amerikaner immer fragen, "Wo ist Hitler? Warum gibt es keinen Fuehrer? Wir muessen schimpfen!" Diese Amerikaner [nicht ich] vermissen den Fuehrer mehr als die Deutschen...komisch. Stimmt das?)

Jeder weiss das die Weisse Amerikanische Protestanten alle Rassisten sind. Weisshautige, Negerhassende, Judenfeindliche Rassisten mit Hakenkreuz im Herz. Es sind nicht nur die Deutschen...!

 

[gianluca790]

Wer hat die Atombombe aur Hiroshima abgeworfen? Die Nazis?

 

[naterator]

(Ich denke, dass die Deutschen Forumbenutzer sehr aergerlich werden, da wir Amerikaner immer fragen, "Wo ist Hitler? Warum gibt es keinen Fuehrer? Wir muessen schimpfen!" Diese Amerikaner [nicht ich] vermissen den Fuehrer mehr als die Deutschen...komisch. Stimmt das?)

Jeder weiss das die Weisse Amerikanische Protestanten alle Rassisten sind. Weisshautige, Negerhassende, Judenfeindliche Rassisten mit Hakenkreuz im Herz. Es sind nicht nur die Deutschen...!

i'm not protestant or racist, i just like the moustache, is that so bad?

Wer hat die Atombombe aur Hiroshima abgeworfen? Die Nazis?

so?, in america we are allowed to nuke japan in civ video games all we want! we know it's just a game

 

[gianluca790]

Secondly, I think that your definition that anyone who has an impact on history is 'great' has some serious flaws. To equate being well known with great is highly questionable. Greatness is a positive attribute that implies some kind of accomplishment. Hitler and his cronies never succeeded at enything except destruction - and they did not even managed to top Stalin in that respect. If this is great to you, I guess your standards are pretty low. [/QUOTE]

Please be quiet, you elitist Technocrat. You judge things according to cold, hard logic - not emotional impact, so you have no right to judge the emotional response people have to Hitler. Negative values are just as important as positive values.

 

[Xanikk999]

Secondly, I think that your definition that anyone who has an impact on history is 'great' has some serious flaws. To equate being well known with great is highly questionable. Greatness is a positive attribute that implies some kind of accomplishment. Hitler and his cronies never succeeded at enything except destruction - and they did not even managed to top Stalin in that respect. If this is great to you, I guess your standards are pretty low.

Please be quiet, you elitist Technocrat. You judge things according to cold, hard logic - not emotional impact, so you have no right to judge the emotional response people have to Hitler. Negative values are just as important as positive values.[/QUOTE]

I would love to put part of your second paragraph in my sig. Its just too funny!

Please be quiet, you elitist technocrat! I love it!

 

[Atropos]

Jeder weiss das die Weisse Amerikanische Protestanten alle Rassisten sind. Weisshautige, Negerhassende, Judenfeindliche Rassisten mit Hakenkreuz im Herz. Es sind nicht nur die Deutschen...!

"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.

 

[gianluca790]

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.

If it is in self defence, it is not morality but intelligence, unless you happen to believe that killing the enemy before he kills you regardless of whether he is a civilian or not will allow you to get to heaven, which is what the Crusaders believed. Let us be pragmatic and fight for oil, which is a tangible good, rather than religion, which is not. By allowing yourself to get blown up in the process, you might think you will get to heaven, but suicide is painless and brings on many changes and you can take or leave it if you please. You will be burning in hell for your folly either because you did or becaus did not turn the other cheek. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, *****es!

 

[gianluca790]

maybe not, but us americans live in a country that simply chooses not to recognize our such history.

The triumph of Moral Relativism in the United States is assured.......

 

[Atropos]

If it is in self defence, it is not morality but intelligence, unless you happen to believe that killing the enemy before he kills you regardless of whether he is a civilian or not will allow you to get to heaven, which is what the Crusaders believed. Let us be pragmatic and fight for oil, which is a tangible good, rather than religion, which is not. By allowing yourself to get blown up in the process, you might think you will get to heaven, but suicide is painless and brings on many changes and you can take or leave it if you please. You will be burning in hell for your folly either because you did or becaus did not turn the other cheek. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, *****es!

It wasn't in self defense. We're talking about the Jews here. Well, not only the Jews, but you get the point.

 

[gianluca790]

[
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.

There are just as many ideological bigots on the Left as there are on the Right. That is the central tenet of Political Relativism, and you just proved it by arguing so insistently in favor of your own political point of view without thinking that maybe Hitler was not the only one who murdered civilians in war. He was just more effective at it. Do HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI ring a bell? Does VIETNAM ring a bell? It is true that murder is murder, but one must always consider the circumstances. Hitler was a racist and thus can be considered functionally insane, just like certain racist officials in the American Administration might use their pull with the idiot-in-chief to advance a racist political agenda with global implications affecting the future of the nation. It is as if one were to say King George III was responsible for the effects his madness had on history and so he needs to be removed. I imagine you would prevent people from achieving political office because of mental retardation. The pilot of the Enola Gay was not insane, so he should be held more responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, regardless of whether he was following orders. Racists who manipulate noble causes such as spreading democracy and freedom, or even gaining access to needed resources, to advance a prejudiced agenda aimed at hindering a hated racial or religious group cannot but be regarded with suspicion. The people who facilitated Hitler's rise to power are just as guilty as he is. People with diminished capacity should not always be held responsible for their actions, but the people who use the knowledge of their madness to gain an advantage in politics should most definitively be held accountable: .

 

[Atropos]

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.

 

[Xanikk999]

[
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.

There are just as many ideological bigots on the Left as there are on the Right. That is the central tenet of Political Relativism, and you just proved it by arguing so insistently in favor of your own political point of view without thinking that maybe Hitler was not the only one who murdered civilians in war. He was just more effective at it. Do HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI ring a bell? Does VIETNAM ring a bell? It is true that murder is murder, but one must always consider the circumstances. Hitler was a racist and thus can be considered functionally insane, just like certain racist officials in the American Administration might use their pull with the idiot-in-chief to advance a racist political agenda with global implications affecting the future of the nation. It is as if one were to say King George III was responsible for the effects his madness had on history and so he needs to be removed. I imagine you would prevent people from achieving political office because of mental retardation. The pilot of the Enola Gay was not insane, so he should be held more responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, regardless of whether he was following orders. Racists who manipulate noble causes such as spreading democracy and freedom, or even gaining access to needed resources, to advance a prejudiced agenda aimed at hindering a hated racial or religious group cannot but be regarded with suspicion. The people who facilitated Hitler's rise to power are just as guilty as he is. People with diminished capacity should not always be held responsible for their actions, but the people who use the knowledge of their madness to gain an advantage in politics should most definitively be held accountable: .

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.

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

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.

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

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.

 

[gianluca790]

It wasn't in self defense. We're talking about the Jews here. Well, not only the Jews, but you get the point.

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?