Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

[Lev Bronstein]

Put Bush in, uu unit - tougher bargaining stance - impervious to reason.

Put Cheney in, mad hunter with mechanical heart uu unit - more meat (more likely human than Partridge)

Put Clinton in - destroy Yugoslavia (but have more fun behind desk)..

Put Delay in -uu unit robs Native Americans (Incas, Aztecs & Mayans lose $$)

Put Nixon in -uu unit bombs Cambodia (phosphorus shells & chemical Agents orange, blue, & green-carcinogens) murder 500,000 civilians.

Put LBJ in-similarly bomb & kill 1million Vietnamese civilians.

Put JFK in- lose your leader early.

Put Henry Ford in-publish "The Eternal Jew" antisemitic trash book that heavily influenced Nazis in their hatred of the Jewish people. Book was translated to German & circulated by German & Nazi nationalists.

Put Reagan in -finance illegal (if it's legal it's OK) counterinsurgant war against Sandinistas by selling drugs in ghettos of American cities (killing & injuring millions of young people & their families-in the process).

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Eichman, Franco, Salazar, Disney, Saruman???
What's the problem? Go for it! Let a hundred flowers wither.

Sorry, actually a decent thread until I ruined it. No more coffee for me.

 

[tombeef]

here's the simple reason Hitler isn't in the game: the Holocaust is much more publicized in the U.S., and I would think most of western europe. Open a history book for shcool and you will find pages on world war II and the holocaust, but nothing, I mean nothing, on Stalin and Mao. Because the U.S. relationship with Russia was very testy at the time, little information was given. After the Allies won World War II, we got to see all the devestation of the holocaust. This was never the case in the U.S.S.R. There was no way for us to get information from there, the same goes for China. More people know about the holocaust, not as much is known/released about Stalin and Mao's "agricultural revolutions."

 

[Xanikk999]

Put Bush in, uu unit - tougher bargaining stance - impervious to reason.

Put Cheney in, mad hunter with mechanical heart uu unit - more meat (more likely human than Partridge)

Put Clinton in - destroy Yugoslavia (but have more fun behind desk)..

Put Delay in -uu unit robs Native Americans (Incas, Aztecs & Mayans lose $$)

Put Nixon in -uu unit bombs Cambodia (phosphorus shells & chemical Agents orange, blue, & green-carcinogens) murder 500,000 civilians.

Put LBJ in-similarly bomb & kill 1million Vietnamese civilians.

Put JFK in- lose your leader early.

Put Henry Ford in-publish "The Eternal Jew" antisemitic trash book that heavily influenced Nazis in their hatred of the Jewish people. Book was translated to German & circulated by German & Nazi nationalists.

Put Reagan in -finance illegal (if it's legal it's OK) counterinsurgant war against Sandinistas by selling drugs in ghettos of American cities (killing & injuring millions of young people & their families-in the process).

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Eichman, Franco, Salazar, Disney, Saruman???
What's the problem? Go for it! Let a hundred flowers wither.

Sorry, actually a decent thread until I ruined it. No more coffee for me.

Man you arent serious are you? Dont know wether to laugh or dismiss you as an idiot.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

I personally believe it has a lot to do with the attitude of the main market for CIV. Let's face it, this game sells primarily in America and Europe. I'm sure we all know Jewish people....one of my best friends is Jewish, and the thought that Hitler would put her and her family in a concentration camp is immediately horrifying to me. But I don't know any Russians, and very few Chinese. To boot, any depiction of Hitler or a swastika is banned in Germany, Austria, and I think France as well, and is generally frowned upon in the rest of Europe and by many in the U.S.
But what of Mao and Stalin? I would classify Stalin as evil via paranoia. He killed millions indiscriminately, as did Hitler. I don't really care about the exact numbers, as killing just one person is horrible enough.
Mao however....he is perhaps the most revered of the three, especially in China itself. And I, personally, am of the opinion that Mao was more ruthless and moronic than evil(though the difference doesn't make much of a difference in practice. He didn't plan famines....apparently, the people in charge of the collectives greatly exaggerated the amount of grain they had grown and Mao stupidly took their figures at face value. It is very possible he did this intentionally, but I'm the sort who gives the benefit of the doubt. Mao listened to none but his own ideology and thus what was probably a good idea in theory seemed perfect to him, when in practice it was horrible. He was n't posessed of common sense...and, in all fairness, China has a lot more people in it than Russia or Europe. It is only logical Mao's insane programs and ruthless persecution of ideological deviants(which I won't defend in the least) would have more victims. In any case, killing even one person is bad, and killing(either intentionally or not) thousands or millions of people is simply appalling. But another point on Mao....Jiang wasn't much better. He abandoned city after city to the Japanese, even though he most assuredly knew after the first there would be widespread Japanese brutality.

In the end....Hitler isn't included for commercial purposes(I'm guessing...I know he was in Civ 1, but, c'mon...Europe's gaming market hardly existed back then!), but, down the road, maybe we'll see him, though Bismarck is inarguably a better leader choice than Hitler based upon importance and what he did, and Frederick as well is debatably better...

 

[JustAnotherUser]

Stalin was chosen because he was fighting alongside the Allies during WWII. Despite the brutal murders that his regime was responsible for, it is inarguable that Russia played a key part in defeating Nazi Germany, and contributing to Allied success. It could even be argued that many Russians have looked upon Stalin as a formiddable wartime leader.

Mao was chosen because he is still looked up upon by many classes of Chinese society. It's common fact that many hold Mao in a positive light mainly due to his wartime duties. For example, fighting the Japanese invasion. While much of the Western world often reiterate many of Mao's mistakes, for example the slaughter of millions, we most not forget that is not what Mao is known for in Chinese society. It is his wartime record, and his ability to lead his country at the time of their greatest need.

Hitler is not in the game because it is widely accepted that this man was simply pure evil. There is a weak argument for Hitler as a liberator or whatever you want to call it. Stalin and Mao did many good things, as well as many bad things. Hitler only did bad things. Much of German society do not like Hitler anyway.

this is just another way to say that Hitler is not in the game because he have lost.

 

[neriana]

Stalin and Mao ruled longer than Hitler, were more influential than Hitler, and their memories are not hated in their own countries. Also, many of the Jews Hitler murdered WERE his own people -- they were German. And he didn't "just" murder Jewish people, he murdered gypsies, homosexuals, and other "undesirables". Not to mention all the people who were killed in his air raids and otherwise through his insane war.

Stalin and Mao were atrocious, yes. But no one is quite like Hitler on the evilness scale; no one else started a world war with the specific major goal of murdering huge swathes of civilians, including children. Yes, Stalin and Mao did everything they could for their own personal power, like Qin Shi-Huang, Alexander, etc., and they did many rotten things, but it is not the same.

Hitler did zilch that had any positive lasting impact on his country. There are a lot of Hitler apologists out there, unfortunately. All those "reforms" he gets credit for were instituted quickly by the government he replaced before he came to power. The other leaders can be, and are, argued over, as to whether or not they did anything right. Hitler was simply an unmitigated disaster.

Finally, when the sight of a leader in a game would make an entire country boycott it, it would be extremely stupid to put said leader in there. Two countries, actually, on reflection. At least. But when one is the leader's own country, you know the leader REALLY does not belong there.

 

[JustAnotherUser]

Remember how there was all that fuss about the hot coffee mod in GTA? Well, if they stuck Hitler in the game, something like that would happen. It's not that they're refusing to put Hitler in the game because they don't like him, it's because they'll lose too much business.

Lose business? How many extra copies of GTA were sold after the hopt coffee was revealed, I wonder?

Mmmh, Maybe they should put Hugh Efner as a leader.

 

[zx1111]

I agree with opinion of first poster.
Why No to Hitler and yes to Mao or Stalin? Is is plain inconsistant attitude.
The only reason I can figure out is that Hitler was one who started the war and defeated thereafter.
Stalin and Mao are victor of WW-II and later Chinese civil war.
Being a victor makes an evil person less evil? No, it doesn't and shouldn't.
Mao, Stalin are same or more evil guy than Hitler in body count.
Starting a war is bad thing but not evil thing.. Look Napoleon..
And Stalin is resposible for colonization of Eastern Europe during cold-war period.
So Firaxis should remove all three from the Civ4 or include them all in expansion.

 

[MattJek]

Stalin and Mao killed for what in their minds was the greater good, they killed to survive and killed to expand and promote their socialist ideology. Hitler killed because of hate. While Stalin and Mao followed an ideology which worked in theory but not in practice, Hitler followed one that was based mostly on hate and racism.
According to some people's logic, half the current leaders shouldnt be in the game.

 

[Mewtarthio]

Throughout the course of Stalin's rule, "Uncle Joe" managed to pull the USSR from a country that had just come off of anarchy into a world superpower that threatened the rest of the world for another generation. Hitler, on the other hand, managed to take over a few weak, newly-formed countries and an inexplicably surprised France, then utterly ruined an air-raid campaign against Britain before attempting to invade Russia, failing at that, and then eventually getting his country decimated before killing himself. Which appears more deserving of "Great Leader" status?

 

[sgrig]

Throughout the course of Stalin's rule, "Uncle Joe" managed to pull the USSR from a country that had just come off of anarchy into a world superpower that threatened the rest of the world for another generation. Hitler, on the other hand, managed to take over a few weak, newly-formed countries and an inexplicably surprised France, then utterly ruined an air-raid campaign against Britain before attempting to invade Russia, failing at that, and then eventually getting his country decimated before killing himself. Which appears more deserving of "Great Leader" status?

Very true! My thoughts exactly!

 

[Lev Bronstein]

Man you arent serious are you? Dont know wether to laugh or dismiss you as an idiot.

Dismiss me as you will. A large portion of leaders of countries have been & continue to be criminal-butchers-war profiteers-exploiters, etc. Of course this statement is not true of the leaders of YOUR country, only of those of all the others.

Japanese have yet to acknowledge their massive crimes in China, or simply that they started the war against the US.

The German govt has yet to acknowledge its WW2 crimes. Mealy mouthed unclear platitudes don't count.

Modern Russia has yet to publish a detailed critique of Stalin & his bureaucratic clique.

France did nothing wrong in Algeria or Vietnam.

The US gov't did nothing wrong in Vietnam, Iraq, Mexico, Guatemala, Chile, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines {read Mark Twain or turn of century Republican majority leader Reed on the Philippine genocide}, There is a very long list of over 100 US military intervention/aggressions vs Latin American nations).

The Civ games force much creative thinking by gamers - about human issues, issues related to the history of world civs. That is good. Have fun, but be a good citizen & care & participate. Jefferson rated active citizenship as being of the greatest importance in maintaining human freedoms.

By the way, what has happened to Habeas Corpus (our most important right), the "bill of rights" & "a man's home is his castle? To get the answer ask your political representative, the CIA, the FBI, or the other 12 secret agencies maintained by your gov't. You won't like the answer. What are you going to do about it?

My point is if you exclude all criminal political leaders from the game, there will be only a handful left & Civ 4's creators will have to rework a sizeable portion of the game's diplomacy.

An interesting new thread would be for forumers to name those political leaders who have not been murderers & reactionary scum.

Oops! the coffee's wearing off.

 

[Mewtarthio]

The US gov't did nothing wrong in Vietnam, Iraq, Mexico, Guatemala, Chile, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines {read Mark Twain or turn of century Republican majority leader Reed on the Philippine genocide}, There is a very long list of over 100 US military intervention/aggressions vs Latin American nations).

Actually, most educated Americans agree that the United States utterly failed in Vietnam. You'll notice that anyone criticizing the Iraq war will often compare it to Vietnam; if nobody believed we'd done anything wrong there, this comparison would serve no purpose. The Phillipines were pretty cruel, but so long ago (if you asked ten random US citizens about the Spanish-American war, you'd be lucky if anyone had even heard about it) that not knowing about it would not be considered an active coverup. I'll concede on people's ignorance of US-sponsored crimes in Central and South America, though. That's just stuff people would rather not discuss.

 

[Perfect_Blue]

By the way, what has happened to Habeas Corpus (our most important right), the "bill of rights" & "a man's home is his castle? To get the answer ask your political representative, the CIA, the FBI, or the other 12 secret agencies maintained by your gov't. You won't like the answer. What are you going to do about it?

Isn't the Patriot Act fun?

My point is if you exclude all criminal political leaders from the game, there will be only a handful left...

Exactly; one person's freedom-fighter, another person's terrorist sort-of-thing.

 

[gmanne]

And this is the unique beauty of the civ series. Does the GTA website discuss the nature of criminalty in Western society?? The WoW website(s) the nature of race war?? Does the Oblivion website discuss the role of social stratification in the hero narrative?? No. Only Civ makes learning fun!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

this is just another way to say that Hitler is not in the game because he have lost.

Well yes, and that is a good reason as there are only 3 losers I can think of among the Civ leaders

2 are those whose civilizations are known primarily because they Lost (Aztecs and Incas, whom the rest of the world only knew about for less than 100 years before their civilizations were conquered)... and are honestly only included for the sense of geographic balance.

The Third is Napoleon who even though he lost is widely regarded as having made immensely valuable contributions (or at least France underneath him made those contributions) and is not regarded as uniquely evil by anyone.

Some people might argue Alexander but he died at the head of a large successful empire

People could Argue Julius Caesar, but again his Empire flourished under him even if he did not flourish on top of it.

The fact is Wilhelm II should be in as a German Leader if Hitler is going to be in. (Hitler's only advantage is name recognition... and for him that's a negative)

 

[Joseph Stalin]

An interesting new thread would be for forumers to name those political leaders who have not been murderers & reactionary scum.

Great idea, probably only ghandi would be named great leader and he wasn't officialy leader of india.

Stalin ran vast concentration camps in the 30's and quite deliberatly slaughtered millions. He too chose his victems from minority groups in the USSR; Mennonites, Ukranians, Jews mostly. After WW2 he slaughtered another million or so, of his own soldiers! Anyone who'd been captured by the enemy was rounded up and killed.

In the past many have tried to claim these 'Russian Holocosts' never happened, but after the break-up of the Soviet Union it was proven that it was even worse than the free world had imagined.

These are not facts, there are countless of books that say he killed 60 mil. and countless that say he kill around 10 mil. and all had access to the old sovjet archives and personal archives of mister Stalin himself

the real death toll we'll never know, what we do know is that the percentage of death in his regime (1924-53) compared to that of hitler's regime is lower so he is not massmurder number 1 but number 2 or 3 (still not something to be proud of)

The fact he is in and hitler isn't is because we live in a kapitalistic world and hitler is a failure and Stalin wasn't (atleast not 100% failure)

For me Stalin has to be in the game because of his role in history just as mao.

BUT i can not and will not convince you so why are we discussing this like in all the other threads the last 4 years it is an ongoing discussion

you hate him, i love him ---> who cares, nobody

so close this thread and any other that begins with "I don't like Stalin", "I won't buy it because of Stalin" or "Why Stalin"

im getting sick of it

 

[SilentDemon]

Stalin and Mao ruled longer than Hitler, were more influential than Hitler, and their memories are not hated in their own countries. Also, many of the Jews Hitler murdered WERE his own people -- they were German. And he didn't "just" murder Jewish people, he murdered gypsies, homosexuals, and other "undesirables". Not to mention all the people who were killed in his air raids and otherwise through his insane war.

Stalin and Mao were atrocious, yes. But no one is quite like Hitler on the evilness scale; no one else started a world war with the specific major goal of murdering huge swathes of civilians, including children. Yes, Stalin and Mao did everything they could for their own personal power, like Qin Shi-Huang, Alexander, etc., and they did many rotten things, but it is not the same.

Hitler did zilch that had any positive lasting impact on his country. There are a lot of Hitler apologists out there, unfortunately. All those "reforms" he gets credit for were instituted quickly by the government he replaced before he came to power. The other leaders can be, and are, argued over, as to whether or not they did anything right. Hitler was simply an unmitigated disaster.

Finally, when the sight of a leader in a game would make an entire country boycott it, it would be extremely stupid to put said leader in there. Two countries, actually, on reflection. At least. But when one is the leader's own country, you know the leader REALLY does not belong there.

As usual, I have to butt in. Firstly define evil (good luck.) Secondly, Murdering discriminately for a purpose is what Hitler was doing, true jews, gypsies etc. were his countrymen, but he did not consider them to be so. He did have a concept of the german "ideal citizen" however, as opposed to Stalin and Mao, not focusing on particular groups and their losses being of their own nationals.

It is very arguable as to whether either Mao or Stalin is more influenctial than Hitler.

Hitler did many things that had a positive impact upon his country, however because Hitler was the loser of WW2 and his country pinned with most of the reconstruction debt, it was incapable of enjoying these benefits after the war ended. Had it not been the case, Hitlers rule would've easily produced similar benefits to a Stalin like rule.

Actually multiple countries possibly boycotting a persons appearance in a game does the complete opposite. He must have been quite influenctial if people to this day are so afraid of the mere suggestion or appearance of him that they need to boycott a *game.* People really have to grow up, the best way to not repeat the mistakes of the past are to be able to face exactly what it was that happened, the goods and bads of so called "evils" and realize it is never as simple as blanket labelling one idea "good" or "evil," afterall, that would be a similar idea to burning books, now wouldn't it?

 

[SilentDemon]

Stalin and Mao killed for what in their minds was the greater good, they killed to survive and killed to expand and promote their socialist ideology. Hitler killed because of hate. While Stalin and Mao followed an ideology which worked in theory but not in practice, Hitler followed one that was based mostly on hate and racism.
According to some people's logic, half the current leaders shouldnt be in the game.

Technically Hitler killed for what in his mind was also the greater good, go read "Mein Kampf."

 

[Joseph Stalin]

The Third is Napoleon who even though he lost is widely regarded as having made immensely valuable contributions (or at least France underneath him made those contributions) and is not regarded as uniquely evil by anyone.

First:
Napoleon was a great man, he has to be in if it wasn't for him the province i live in (limburg-Netherlands) wouldn't be free of oppression by the province of Holland (this is true we where a second graded citizen untill napoleon conquered us and we had more freedom then ever.

Second:
and because of Napoleon I have a last name (he had a law that everybody should have a last name)

third:
The little fellow showed us for the first time what nationalism could do and he showed us a new form of war (mainly seen as the first total war, or the war before the total war)