Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by SenhorDaGuerra, Mar 26, 2006.
Nice factual argument.
Judaism is probably the one religion of which that frequents its members part of a racial background as well as a religious one more so than any other. In "Mein Kampf" Hitler outlines why it is he believes some races are inferior to those of the German people. In this ideology the idea of Judaism was intertwined with being both a religious and racial profile. He was trying to categorize all members of both the religious and racial background having what he thought to be flaws (which did turn out to be a powerful piece of propoganda.)
As most do, you only point out one side of the coin. Hitler is not to only be remembered for his defeats, considering there are many documentaries and books even coming out to this day that speak of innovations made during his leadership. He did a fantastic job of rebuilding Germany after WW1, turning it into a more powerful country and probably the most powerful in the world at that time. Germany recovering more quickly after WW2 than 1 (which I am not even certain is accurate) could easily be attributed to the occupation of the country by both American and Russian forces who as after WW1 pinned most of the war reparations on Germany and required a rebuilt country to pay up. Also keep in mind that the allies wanted to prevent an environment that created Hitler in the first place, a country in massive debt that still hadn't recovered from war. Diplomaticly he was not a complete failure. Russia was friendly toward Nazi Germany up until the time at which Hitler invaded. As far as the rest of Europe, what other country can you name that he may have had diplomacy with? France... Oh wait he conquered that country... Poland maybe? There was nobody around that he needed as an ally since he was dominant over them all. Yet, some arabic countries readily welcomed the Nazis as well as the Japanese affiliating themself with them to some extent. So much for him just having Italy... Strategicly, why would he care if in attacking Poland England and France would react? His military was far more powerful than either of theirs. "Ok he won some partial victories out of suprise but what were they good for?" I suppose winning against most of your neighbors who are world powers are "partial victories" and suprise isn't a viable strategic tactic... As far as him being convinced he could win, I challenge you to say that if you have the most powerful military in the world and are winning on 3 fronts that you wouldn't possibly get greedy and try for more. The man was trying to conquer the world in his lifetime, which is evident and in this he was very nearly successful. His slaughtering of jews and what he considered to be the "inferior" of his nation was in some aspects used to accumulate wealth and cheap labor.
Final verdict: Yes, he was a great leader. He led his people very well and made enormous victories and advancements in a very short amount of time. It wasn't that he lost to Russia, America and Britain in the end, it was that those were the countries that were *required* for him to lose. Russia continually pleaded with the Americans to attack on a western front to assure victory, of which in all honestly the Russians by themself still could have lost, especially with their losses of people in mind.
Any halfway historically educated person should realize that producing significant boosts to ones infrastructure, industry, military and technology would be the criteria for evaluating a great leader. In all such cases Hitlers rule is noteworthy, regardless of how it was achieved.
Funny thing about all of this, if they put in a good Hitler AI he would more likely kick your ass, and then you'd understand just how effective his policies were .
Hitler did not intend to embark on a genocide of the Jews until very late in WW2. The plan before that had been to deport them (one of the ideas was to create a "Jewish homeland" on Madagascar).
I know you didn't
What I'm stressing is the distinction between, Hitler, Nazis and Germans. Popular history likes to paint all the evils on one man, Hitler, but IMO the rest of the Nazis played a bigger role than he did.
The reason people put it all on Hitler, I'm thinking, is that it's easier to seperate Hitler from the German citizens than it is to seperate Nazis from them.
So having Hitler in the Civ games would, in some people's minds, rightly or wrongly, associate Hitler with the German people, in a bad way.
( if I tried, I bet I could make this whole post one big run-on sentence, Rotfl!)
Exactly Antiochus, not many people know of the Madagascar plan. It's a shame there was no possible way of implementing it, but it does prove that Hitler passed down planning for the final solution with a rough guideline of simply removing the Jews in the most feasible manner.
I genuinely believe Hitler didn't set out fully intent on their extermination, simply their removal from the Reich. If shipping them to Madagascar or Siberia after the war had been the easiest way I think that's the one they would have picked.
I agree with most of your post, but shouldnt it be "If Hitler isnt included, then neither Stalin nor Mao should be."
Thats a big difference.
one other thing why Hitler isn't included:
if he is there is a reasonable chance that Hitler or germany would adopt jewdism as his religion, and i think that would upset a lot of people. Hitler isn't socialy accepted.
well i'm living proof that my name is reasonable accapted only time my name was banned was on my Red Alert 2 account. very wierd because you can play as cummunist russia and they use Stalin (look-a-like) in RA-1
I haven't finished reading this long thread, but from a number of posts people apparently consider Mao the better one out of these three, and even claim he's "idealistic" or just a "moron".
As a Chinese who's paid quite a bit attention to his history, I've got to tell you this is not the case.
He might be somewhat idealistic at the very beginning, but this is more like sugarcoating. His greatest strength is playing office politics and manipulating people. He is absolutely NOT a moron. The apparently ridiculous and stupid Great Leap and Cultural Revolution were just means to cleanse out his political rivals. So in other words, he sacrificed millions of people's lives, betraying the trust of two to three generations of people, and demolishing the culture of a reputable civ basically to ensure he's in power. Compared to Hitler and Stalin, he was just more subtle and skillful, always able to find a few stupid guys (and his wife) to be the scapegoats, and thus able to keep his image relatively less tainted.
I say kick him out of Civ games, and ban him to hexx.
Mao was power-hungry, I admit
The reason that he started Cultrual Revolution was because his moronic Economic Policy starved lots of people to dead and he had thus lost his credibility as the leader. That's why he started the Cultural Revolution - to regain power through his manipulation of the people, and to proceed with his foolhardy ideal, to create a paradise for the proletariats
Wow! I hadn't thought of that angle at all! Excellent observation!
I agree, neither was Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot. I think what's being said is that some of his plans proved to be... less than intelligent.
Of course you point out he wasn't afraid of slaughtering millions just to retain power, which is true of all 'bad' leaders. It's just in the olden days there weren't millions to kill, so the numbers were smaller.
To put it very simply, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all killed tens of millions of citizens of their own countries. I believe there are plenty of other figures in history whom it would be better to remember than those three.
And as I have said earlier, some of the other "Western" leaders have done the same, yet in more subtle ways. The only nuking of a city (US), exploitation and murder of millions of indegionous people (England, France, Netherlands, Spain), firebombing of Dresden (UK and America), enslavment and subdigation of a nation (Japan).
If you want to get picky, then maybe we should just make them one generic Civilization?
As I said, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of citizens in their own countries.
Who wants to remember madmen such as those when there are plenty of other figures in history whom it would be better to remember than those three.?
It should be Lenin instead of Stalin.
Why Stalin and Mao, but not Hitler? It's quite simple. Stalin and Mao killed their own people, which is, sad to say, much more acceptable than Hitler, who killed other country's people.
This thread is rather moot, though, since I believe that Stalin will only be available in a Scenario.
Think about it: In the screenshots for the expansion they have the leaderheads of three nations who had huge roles in WWII: Churchill, Mao and Stalin.
Think about it some more: England and Russia already have two leaderheads each. They're not going to give those countries yet another leader while other Civs only have one, nor are they going to delete Peter, Catherine, Vicky or Lizzy.
It seems very likely that the screen shots are only for a scenario and people should not get so bent out of shape because it is most likely within the context of a scenario. And if Stalin is a leader for a scenario, I would not be surprised to see De Gaulle, Hirohito or *Gasp!* even Hitler and Mussolini. Having the controversial leaders included is a heck of a lot better than having a blacked-out silhouette staring at you.
I suppose its similar to not having Saddam Hussein in the game. He did a lot of terrible things.
Saddam Hussein was never in a position to conquer the world. Amoungst dictators of all time past and present, he is a pawn.
Separate names with a comma.