Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

[SilentDemon]

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?

If only it were as simple as you suggest. Hitler managed to take over all his neighbors which were the stronger powers of world at the time including France, and Britain was also on the verge of submission. It is true that the air raid against Britain began to favor the British, however they were no match for the brunt of the German army. He didn't just attempt to invade Russia, he did so, and very well. The tide turned only because Stalin was just as ruthless as he was and it cost the lives of 20 million Russians, they lost many, many more people than did the Germans. His country became "dessimated" because he was fighting on 3 different fronts before the U.S. came into the war and the 4th front (along with a major Russian offensive) pushed his army too far.

I noticed how you managed to omit how the German army was the most powerful in the world at the time.

How German rocketry was the most advanced in the world.

How U.S. combat tactics at the time of WW2 formed around German tactics.

How Germany was turned into an industrious super power under Hitlers rule.

How it took every other world power to defeat him.

How the German army was one of the first to be using coordinated radio systems for their tanks and infantry units.

The list goes on and on, go read some books about the era before you blanket classify the "He was an evil man, plain evil and therefore doesn't belong here." I hate to tell you this, Hitler wasn't an *evil* man. He was a *man* he lived, he died. During his life he did some things that at the time were good, and some that were at the time very bad. Most of these things good or bad, he did for another purpose, and in his means he was very successful. Concentration camps did exterminate millions of people, they were in the same right a means of cheap forced labor which helped to quickly industrialize Germany, and it worked. Consider carefully the quote the developers chose to use in Civ4 that appears by Hitler:

"The great masses are more likely to believe a large lie, than a small one."

It is an ignorant mistake that people make thinking Hitler was an idiot; he wasn't. What he did worked, and it worked very well, and thats the main reason why so many people would like to think of him as "evil." He exploited the darker side of human beings to achieve goals. This however doesn't make him evil, it makes him a "leader."

 

[Veteranewbie]

Well here's your different
1: Hitler - Kill lots of people he didn't like. Started World War and attacked everybody. Germany ended up in ruins - its capital caputred, its cities decimated, huge numbers of its people died, and Germany collapsed from the world most advanced nation (well at least I knew of, Germany was the world major, if not most, noble-prize winner producing nation up till WW2) into two vassal states that didn't united for almost 50 years
2: Stalin - Kill lots of people he didn't like. Defeat Germany invasion and eventually win the war and revenge for his country. Economy policy pushed Soviet from a war-ruined third world country into a Super Power
3: Mao - Kill lots of people he didn't like. Defended against Japanese invasion, started Civil War that aimed to liberate millions of poor people in China. United China (except Taiwan) in a real sense (i.e. no more warlords) and enforced China's sovereignty against foreign powers. Military victory (i.e. Korean War) helped rebuild Chinese confidences. Unintentional deaths due to moronic economy policy. Started Cultural Revolution that intended to destroy Chinese culture for his ideal. Left China in a State of Chaos when died, but nonetheless better than what it used to be at least, a unified China

 

[SilentDemon]

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)

Believe it or not Napolean wasn't even little by the average standards of his time, a big misconception . (though a piece of his anatomy was auctioned off once as a "small shriveled object..." you might wanna look into that...)

 

[BLOODYBATTLEBRA]

I thought it had categorically shown that it is NOT illegal to depict Hitler in Germany or Austria. What IS illegal, is promoting Nazism. You can depict Hitler freely in history books etc, but you can't take a giant poster of him to a rally and say all jews should be killed. THAT is the illegal bit (illegal in most countries actually, under the idea of promoting hate crime, racially inciting crime etc, and a few people were recently arrested in the UK for precisely that:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4847752.stm)

So, it;s highly emotive, but not illegal. Holocaust denial is though, but that's a different story.


Same issue in France, although nowhere near as much as in Germany or Austria.

So, once again, as far as I know, form talking to my german friends, the idea being touted around here, that depicting Hitler in Germany is illegal, is a load of nonsense. Several members of this board have rightly pointed out that a boatload of games already depict him, with no noticeable sale impact. The difference being that those games focussed on 20th century Europe, and WW2.


It's a fairly subtle difference, because a leader in Civilization is meant to be able to represent the nation throughtout the ages. Hitler is not, from that P.O.V, suitable, being somewhat of an aberration.

However, from that point of view, neither is Stalin. It can be argued, quite strongly if you wanted to, that Lenin would ahve handled the German invasion better, and so would Trotsky.


Simply put, there are many parallels between Hitler and Stalin, both lived at the same era, and died within a few years of each other (Hitler 1945, Stalin 1953?). Both were repulsive bastards. Both industrialised their countries. However, Germany was fighting against numerous opponents, in numerous theatres, and lost. Stalin was fighting just the Germans, and just on the 'eastern' front (until right at the end when he grabbed some Japanese land). Alot of people point out that Hitler left a ruined Germany, but consider that he turned Germany around from a weak coutnry,to a country that could wage world war, inside of 6 years. Industrially speaking, he was the match of Stalin, or perhaps even the States (highly debatable), but certainly not both at the same time.


This is in danger of turning into a lecture on world war2, which I am sure most f you don't need.

I have said it before, and will say it again, it's not morality that dictates who goes in or stays out, it's marketability. Simply, and sadly, Hitler presents far more of a debate than Stalin. You have to imagine the PUBLIC (by which I mean the man on the street, not us, who probably hasn't even plaeyd the game) reaction and image if Hitler were included. Nothing would mess up a reputation quite as badly as being accused of being even remotedly sympathetic to the Nazis.

And Stalin? Ask the average guy on the styreet, "Who was Stalin" and I can almost GUARENTEE that far fewer people will respond knowledgeably than if you ask "Who was Hitler?"

Quite an interesting hypothessis!

It's lke the religion question.

Once again, Firaxis are displaying the collective courage of a chicken that has just narrowly escaped being put in the pot.

Once again, they must.

 

[Joseph Stalin]

Well you are right there but at this military acadamy he had the nickname "little Corsican" because almost every body there was taller

Napoleon was taller then most people in france because they had bad food and did hard labor for early age.

Napoleon didn't do hard labor and he had good food (he was one of the more wealthy people) so he isn't little if you look ad the overall size of every person in that age but he was rather little if you only look at the wealthy people of that age.

atleast that is my theory

 

[Black Waltz]

You could say the same about any leader. Churchill in the expansion? Didn't he order the firebombing of Dresden? Victorian England? Not exactly known as a free and open time. Ceaser? Yes. Rome was an open soceity ok. I bet he NEVER ordered the deaths of anyone... Oh wait...

The only reason people are getting bent over Stalin and Mao are the other social models they showed. It has nothing about massacres that took place under their rule, otherwise you would have to take out most of the Civilizations and leaders in the game.

Leaders and abuse of power goes hand in hand.

 

[Elhoim]

I'm guessing...I know he was in Civ 1, but, c'mon...Europe's gaming market hardly existed back then!

I think Frederick was Germany´s leader in Civ 1...

 

[Pasta_Man]

How many people here arguing that Stalin and Mao are deserving of inclusion actually have any sort of education in history or any sort of perspective on the reality of the situation?

If you include Mao and Stalin then it's obvious the leaders have been picked on fame and not on leadership ability, and by that reasoning I challenge anyone here to name a German leader more internationally famous (in case we have any Germans trying to be clever) than Hitler.

 

[Jimbo30]

How many people here arguing that Stalin and Mao are deserving of inclusion actually have any sort of education in history or any sort of perspective on the reality of the situation?

If you include Mao and Stalin then it's obvious the leaders have been picked on fame and not on leadership ability, and by that reasoning I challenge anyone here to name a German leader more internationally famous (in case we have any Germans trying to be clever) than Hitler.

There are an awful lot of leaders who were picked on leadership ability over fame though.

Queen Victoria and Elizabeth I. Queen Vic is still fairly well known in the UK but Elizabeth I? Your average man in the street wouldn't have a clue.

Theodore Roosevelt and George Washington? Washington is reasonably well known, but Roosevelt? Gimme a break. If it was down to fame then surely Abe Lincoln should be ahead of both. And probably in ability also (what were Firaxis thinking?).

Both Russian 'The Greats'. So little is known about Russia outside of Russia that if you asked the average man in the street to name a famous Russian they'd probably name on of the football billionaires in control of teams in Europe. Those with a bit of savvy would perhaps mention Gorbachev or Stalin. Peter and Catherine The Great? No way.

There are plenty of leaders in Civ4 based on their competence as opposed to their infamy.

 

[Xanikk999]

There are an awful lot of leaders who were picked on leadership ability over fame though.

Queen Victoria and Elizabeth I. Queen Vic is still fairly well known in the UK but Elizabeth I? Your average man in the street wouldn't have a clue.

Theodore Roosevelt and George Washington? Washington is reasonably well known, but Roosevelt? Gimme a break. If it was down to fame then surely Abe Lincoln should be ahead of both. And probably in ability also (what were Firaxis thinking?).

Both Russian 'The Greats'. So little is known about Russia outside of Russia that if you asked the average man in the street to name a famous Russian they'd probably name on of the football billionaires in control of teams in Europe. Those with a bit of savvy would perhaps mention Gorbachev or Stalin. Peter and Catherine The Great? No way.

There are plenty of leaders in Civ4 based on their competence as opposed to their infamy.

Excuse me... but theodore roosevelt isnt in civ4. Its Franklin deleno roosevelt. And i think most people knew who theodore roosevelt and FDR were. You would have to be awfully ignorant not to know.

It amazes me how so many non americans assume its theodore roosevelt when it even says franklin roosevelt. And besides he doesnt look anything like teddy roosevelt!

 

[GeorgeOP]

The only reason people are getting bent over Stalin and Mao are the other social models they showed. It has nothing about massacres that took place under their rule, otherwise you would have to take out most of the Civilizations and leaders in the game.

It's because socialism in the extreme like Stalin and Mao are just as bad as fascism in the extreme in El Duce and Hitler. Yet it's ok to put in Stalin and Mao but not the other two. It's the double standard a majority of posters have. I wonder how fast my ip would be banned if my screen name was "Adolph Hitler", yet I see "Joseph Stalin" is doing just fine.

I'm not saying that fascism is good. Please don't misunderstand me. I just feel that extreme socialism is just as bad.

 

[SilentDemon]

How many people here arguing that Stalin and Mao are deserving of inclusion actually have any sort of education in history or any sort of perspective on the reality of the situation?

If you include Mao and Stalin then it's obvious the leaders have been picked on fame and not on leadership ability, and by that reasoning I challenge anyone here to name a German leader more internationally famous (in case we have any Germans trying to be clever) than Hitler.

Sadly that challenge isn't an analogous argument. Your challenge should be "I challenge any of you to come out with refutations to suggest that Mao and Stalin and/or Hitler were great leaders." There is already enough support for this challenge on these boards alone, let alone in history books. Afterall your argument is over their leadership qualities, and if those prove true your claim about fame (as sometimes fame is produced as a result of leadership) has little to do with the underlying idea of your argument. Proving that the leaders are well known does not refute them having leadership abilities in of itself.

 

[SilentDemon]

It's because socialism in the extreme like Stalin and Mao are just as bad as fascism in the extreme in El Duce and Hitler. Yet it's ok to put in Stalin and Mao but not the other two. It's the double standard a majority of posters have. I wonder how fast my ip would be banned if my screen name was "Adolph Hitler", yet I see "Joseph Stalin" is doing just fine.

I'm not saying that fascism is good. Please don't misunderstand me. I just feel that extreme socialism is just as bad.

Believe it or not it's not even that socialism or fascism in of themselves as theories are necessarily any worse than other forms of government, in fact they have many positive aspects... It's just that every form of which that they have existed to date hasn't worked well in practice because of the people involved.

 

[Jimbo30]

Excuse me... but theodore roosevelt isnt in civ4. Its Franklin deleno roosevelt. And i think most people knew who theodore roosevelt and FDR were. You would have to be awfully ignorant not to know.

It amazes me how so many non americans assume its theodore roosevelt when it even says franklin roosevelt. And besides he doesnt look anything like teddy roosevelt!

Then you would be amazed at the ignorance that outsiders have of any other nations politicians or politics. Most people don't even know anything about their own nations politics. Neither Roosevelt means squat to me, and I'm pretty sure most non-Americans are the same. Sure I've heard the name, but I couldn't tell you a thing about them.

To me that means they are unimportant in the grand scheme. The only reason they are in Civ4 is because it's an American company who created it. This is a common complaint about Civ4. I had never heard of West Point before I played Civ4, neither had the vast majority of Europeans. Does that amaze you too?

If you so desire, I'm sure I could reel off plenty of examples which show that it is infact American arrogance which is the problem here as opposed to non-American ignorance.

 

[asylumlost]

I agree completely with everyone that said Hitler isnt in for commercial reasons. And I dont blame firaxis for it. If they can avoid controversy without hindering gameplay there is no problem as I can see. Mao and Stalin dont pose as much of a threat even though they made as many (or more) atrocities to man as Hitler.

The basic fact is that the average person is ignorant. Most people do not know what bad Mao and Stalin did besides being communists. Nor do they know what good Hitler had done.


I dont really care if Hitler is in the game or not (besides the novelty of being him or crushing him). I am however getting tired of this debate. I have learned a bit and appreciate the facts given by certain people. but I think its time we ended it, as its obvious that some people will not change their opinions (right or wrong) on the subject of Hitler as is their right. The debate is dead and just getting repetitive.

 

[MattJek]

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

Yeah, but it was his own personal twisted ideology.

 

[GeorgeOP]

You should know FDR like I should know Churchill. They were both leaders of world powers during WWII. I don't expect you to know all his policies, but I would think you would know that he was president during that time. I try not to be so pro-American as to expect you to know Teddy Roosevelt. I admidt I don't know much of the history of England and their leaders, so I don't expect others to know my history.

Although West Point is something unfamiliar with non-Americans, there are things in Civ games that I didn't know about until they were in the game. The Chicken I... thing. I didn't know about the Hanging Gardens until Civ II. Is there a more popular World Wonder that would provide the same benefits as West Point while being from the same era? Not trying to be mean, just pointing out that it might be a case of the benefit coming first, and the creaters could think of nothing else to represent it.

 

[5cats]

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

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)

Funny you should mention Ghandi, my Marxist-Lenonist friend thinks he's a mass murderer too, lol!

We agree it was millions then, which is fine.

I don't know why percentages are all that important, except to accuratly portray the extent of evilness, like Pol Pot in Cambodia. Still I agree with your conclusion, worst, second-worst, whatever! All three were evil by our standards.

Russia (Stalin) invaded Poland too, yet Britian and France only declaired war on Germany. Hummmm. Stalin also invaded 5 other countries, which also failed to draw more than a diplomatic letter from the rest of the world. Double hummmm.

And the main thing still is: Hitler in the game makes for very bad press!

 

[Veteranewbie]

I don't think it is only on the scale of evilness
It also depends on how much they've done for their own people and for the other
While Mao and Stalin died with a nation though may not have vastly improved, they have actually made the people a bit better off. But Hitler, he basically decimated Germany plus he brought tragedies to all those surrounding Germany
One may argue that Hitler brought Germany out of recession, but let's not forget, Germany was already a developed economy. He didn't perform miracles that turn Germany from a third world country into a devloped economy. He merely developed what was already there (yeah I knew those stuff like one million marks worth only a loaf of bread, Germany on the edge of bankruptcy etc. etc. argument)
And Germany's technology was still the top of the world, well until WW2

 

[Sabin Stargem]

While Hitler may indeed be considered to be evil, I think that he was no less evil than other rulers of the known past. Rather, I believe that he was simply a charismatic leader that just happened to rule during a time of great transitions. During World War I, the technological state of warfare had changed dramatically, not only in the tools used and their effects, but also how they were employed. New methods of fighting were developed, borders and tensions changed. It was a very important time, because it essentially allowed for future wars to change dramatically in scale.

The Nazi party, through intrigue, popularity, propaganda, and a charismatic leaderhead began to become an altogether different nation than it was during World War I, and had developed weapons and tactics that had essentially expanded upon the first war's developments. For example, the Blitzkreig. This regime's military was also smarter and more mobile than the other nations. France created the Monigot Line, covering a huge swath of borderland near Germany with defensive fortresses and supply lines. However, Germany did the most simple thing to solve this problem: It conquered Poland, and then just went into France from the formerly Polish border that wasn't covered by the Monigot Line.

Fast forward a bit, and you would see planes that were suitable for warfare, especially so with the development of bomber craft, but there were also new defenses present to deal with this problem. The German's rocket program developed long range rockets that served as weapons of terror and destruction. The tanks of the 3rd Reich were a force to be reckoned with, and a great deal of Europe has become a war-torn country.

The Nazis employed prisoners, be they Jewish or POWs that weren't American into a forced labor taskforce. When they executed the living or ceremented the dead, this practice had a practical side: the remains typically had something of value, like gold teeth - which was naturally put to use. These are examples of the vicious and practical hatemongering of the Nazi party.

This regime of terror and destruction however wasn't invincible by any means. The leader of this nation was having problems with additiction to morphine and other drugs, mostly because of his personal doctor that proscribed such medications. There was also the problem with Parkinson's disease, which undermined the leader in some regards. In addition to this, Hitler had ordered an attack on Russia. This wasn't a good idea by any means at the time, mostly because winter was coming up in Russia, and that the Germans already had enough on their proverbial plates with the many fronts they were already fighting. To support the Eastern Front during winter would have required many parts, food, clothing, and manpower to carry out.

Russia itself however suffered much because of Germany's invasion. The reason was because of the winter, which hurt both sides of the conflict. Winter may have defeated the German war machine, but it also induced a great famine among the Russian populance, resulting in a rather large number of deaths. It also didn't help any that the weapons among the Russian army was limited.

As for America and it's role in the war...it initially supplied the Allied powers through cargo ships, containing food, supplies, and even weapons. Not content to allow the Americans to do such things freely, the submarines of the German nation hunted the unescorted vessels. This severely injured the Allies, and America wasn't very pleased with losing it's personel and ships to the Germans. Tensions rose, and eventually America stepped reluctantly into the war, on the Allies side. Bolstered by definate American support in all ways, the Allies had a fighting chance to truly win against the Germans. America went into full war-time production and induced measures to support it's forces.

At this point, things were looking grim on the 3rd Reich's prospects for a future. While still a strong nation, it was feeling the strain of fighting so many battles with so many enemies. America's support of the enemy made things a bit worse. At the time, America was an relatively independent nation that was not tied to anyone in particular, and the populance was willing to lend a tremendous amount of support for the war.

Germany's ideals wouldn't have appealed to many people, if only because it excluded those who didn't conform. War weariness, shattered pride, poor leadership on the part of Hitler in the final years of the war, and a stretched army finally did in the Nazi Party. Despite of all that it did, in technological terms, warfare, and how the world would view the likes of Eugenics, hatred, and warfare, Germany was finally defeated. Many sighed in relief, and others trembled in fear at would happen. Soon, the political vultures of the Allies descended, to rake in reparations. Unlike the last time Germany was defeated however, the citizens of Germany didn't grow into a power that wished for greatness a second time.

One would suppose that World War II was enough to quench the majority of Europe's desire for warfare. A thing to be thankful for, since it has been many years since a war last took place in the well known Western Hemisphere. I think Germany and the Nazi party of World War II unwittingly contributed to that, if only by making everyone plain sick with war and supplying the technological and diplomatic means for such. Germany and it's leadership is too important to ignore, for far too many reasons.