Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

[Wodan]

I agree with you on all points except Hitler towards world domination. This does go into the "What ifs" category, so I apologize for suggesting something that never happened, but I do believe it takes some consideration for its simplicity and relevance. Imagine if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia (considering Stalin regarded Nazi Germany a friend and possible ally.) With that one simple consideration, it is questionable just how far Hitler and Stalin could have taken their conquest, since in the end it was the Russians who were the straw that broke the camels back. Hitler did indeed have plans to attack the United States (this has been discussed many times on the history channel,) and obviously he wanted to control more than just Europe, as he attacked Russia and also had a campaign waging war in North Africa. Not to mention Nazi presence in some middle eastern countries.

Hitler made two mistakes. He should have been buddy-buddy with both the US and Russia.

Germany would have spent 10-15 years, at least, digesting and consolidating power in Europe and Africa. If he had done that, Germany geniunely could have gone to war again with a legitimate bid for world dominance. In, say, 1955.

As it was, it was a lesson in stupidity. If there was anyone who "bit off more than they could chew", it was Hitler.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

Nice comparison. No, I didn't have to look it up. But, it definitely illustrates your point, that there are "nickel/dime" dictators whose only significance is that they are current. Give a few years and nobody will remember them.

Would Saddam have amounted to anything, on a historical arena, if Bush hadn't gone out of his way to take him out? Hard to say.

Wodan

Yes, I'm quoting myself.

The problem people have with Hitler, Stalin, etc, is that they're somewhat CURRENT and still in people's minds.

Yes, Monty was (probably) a vile person (in today's standards). Probably more vile than Hitler. Hard to say. Still, the point is who is a socially sensitive leader, in which context?

Bottom line is that something that happened thousands of years ago just doesn't hit people like something in the past century or so.

You know, why not include Wallenstein? He was a butcher, no bones about it. But, he was a military genius and quite a leader (Austria/Germany). That's the point, exactly. But then again, if we're talking about Wallenstein, why isn't Gustav Adolphus in the game. If we ever have Sweden as a nation, he surely will be. And, Wallenstein for Austira (though Wallenstein was a mercenary of sorts... Gustav would have never hired out).

Wodan

 

[Pawel]

Saddam couldn't even defeat Iran WITH US/Western backing and real WMD in nearly ten years' of trying or hold onto Kuwait for any length of time.

OK, let's get some facts straight. Saddam was a socialist and has repeatedly claimed that Stalin was his greatest hero. The overwhelming part of the support he received, from tanks to chemical bomb casings, came from the Soviet Union. The only Western power that gave him significant support was France, but not at a level much exceeding that of China. While German companies did build the factories that produced the poison gas that he used agains Iran and the Kurds, the government was not directly involved. If I recall the statistics correctly, at a very distant next place was Brazil. So, imagine if he, instead of playing with his Stalin dolls as a kid, would have had some more positive influence in his life. Wouldn't that have saved the world a lot of trouble?

I agree with the argument that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao should not be forgotten. In fact, when some of my German friends talk about what happened under the Nazi regime as a byproduct of the war, and not the other way around, I feel very sad. But in Civ there is no 'Evil' button. All leaders are the same. Thus, I think that it would be very wrong to let people play as the worlds greatest villains, and identifying with them in a positive way. Please keep these monsters away from our computers!

EDIT: Of course, Mao is already in the game. Considering the rich heritage of China, however, the designers wouldn't have to work very hard to find a replacement...

 

[GEChallenger]

This is just in response to the first post-- I haven't bothered reading the rest of the thread.

Completely ignoring the atrocities perpetrated by Hitler, the man shouldn't be a leader simply because the leaders in Civ should be the best of the best, those men who led their respective nations to their greatest heights and are revered for the most part as heroes.

Hitler destroyed Germany. Today his name is an anaethma among his people. He certainly doesn't qualify.

 

[MilesGregarius]

OK, let's get some facts straight. Saddam was a socialist and has repeatedly claimed that Stalin was his greatest hero. The overwhelming part of the support he received, from tanks to chemical bomb casings, came from the Soviet Union. The only Western power that gave him significant support was France, but not at a level much exceeding that of China. While german companies did build the factories that produced the poison gas that he used agains Iran and the Kurds, the government was not directly involved. If I recall the statistics correctly, at a very distant next place was Brazil.

The US didn't give Iraq military hardware but did in fact provide other assistance, including intelligence, finance - the sinews of war, and chemical weapon precursors. Furthermore, the US reserves the right to block sales by third parties of military hardware using US technology. During the Iran-Iraq War, the US refrained from exercising this right on third-party sales to Iraq, thus providing tacit support as Iraq procured said hardware from European, Israeli, Asian, and South American sources. Finally, though the US had diplomatic relations with neither Iran nor Iraq at the start of the war, the State Department removed Saddam's Iraq from the list of state sponsors of terror in 1982, thus opening up the possiblity of World Bank and/or IMF financing, and restored full diplomatic relations in 1984, four years before cessation of hostilities.

Additionally, though the Soviet Union was allied to Iraq, at the beginning of the war the Soviets, in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions, ceased arms shipments to Baghdad. Shipments resumed again in 1982, at the same time that US support began, in response to Iraqi setbacks at the hands of the Iranians. Whatever their Cold War antagonisms, both Washington and Moscow viewed the Ayatollah's Iran as an unacceptable threat. Simple realpolitik in action.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

 

[Pawel]

And your point is that since you don't like the US, having Hitler and Stalin in the game makes sense? Or maybe you want to have Saddam too?

While there are many relevant ways to criticise the US policy in Iraq, going the extra mile to make things up doesn't really make sense. For instance, the weapons were sold to Iraq on credit, that's why it had such a large debt to Russia, France, and China (which Saddam tried to repay by oil concessions). None of these suppliers (who delivered well over 90% of all Iraqi weapons) was bound by any third-party restrictions. The short break in deliveries made by the Soviet Union was mainly motivated by a deal that they struck with Iran, giving them access to US technology (the F-14 fighter, Phoenix and Standard missiles, among others). France and China also kept sales up. An example of the former are the French Exocet missiles that were sold during the 'tanker war', with the explicit aim of sinking international, civilian shipping. Incidentally, Saddam also used them to attack the USS Stark in 1987. The largest supplier for the Iraqi chemical weapons program was Germany. France was more involved in the nuclear program, for instance building the Osirac reactor that was bombed by the Israelis bombed in 1981 before it was completed. The attack on the Kurdish village of Halabdja, carried out by French Mirage F-1 planes, dropping Russian bombs filled with gas produced in German factories, illustrates well the origin and method of use. Tens of thousands of tons of chemical weapons were destroyed Rolf Ekeus after the Gulf War. In order for any analysis to make sense, you need to keep the quantities in mind. Tracking down limited amounts of generic, dual-use chemicals sold by some US company shows the weakness of the US embargo, but is hardly relevant to understanding the WMD issue. However, you are right in one thing. Once Saddam got WMD:s, the US did supply a lot of arms - to Iran! Does Iran-Contras ring a bell? These were to a large extent spare parts, among others for Iranian F-4 Phantoms that could protect Iran from chemical attacks.

It should be noted, however, that the motives of the main suppliers varied widely. Despite that Chirac called Saddam the Arab de Gaulle in the '80s, and personally went to Baghdad to sign the Mirage deal, France had a policy of supplying anyone, including countries like Libya and South Africa, as long as they got paid. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was a very reluctant nuclear proliferator, since they felt that it undermined their superpower position. Saddam's links to France were thus born out of necessity, while his bond to the Soviet Union was deep and ideological.

But let's stick with the topic. If you want to argue that the US is the root of all evil, there are better places to do it. However, it is ill advised to use this to draw attention away from the question of whether Civ4 should take the risk of advertising totalitarian systems and potentially even spread sympathy for Hitler and Stalin. Of course, they may be necessary in some historic scenarios, but I don't think that they should be part of the basic game.

 

[MilesGregarius]

And your point is that since you don't like the US, having Hitler and Stalin in the game makes sense? Or maybe you want to have Saddam too?

Where exactly does it say I don't like the US? My point is that Saddam, even with most of the world, free AND Communist, rooting for, if not supporting him in his struggle with the Ayatollah's Iran still failed to amount to anything.

My comments were directed at refuting 5cats assertion that Saddam, Khomeini, Arafat, Gaddafi, et al posed a credible threat of global domination. I made no comment on the validity and/or morality of the foreign policy of the US or any other nation.

Does Iran-Contras ring a bell?

Operative word CONTRA. The impetus was not to support Iran in any sense beyond helping two unsavory regimes bleed themselved dry, but to circumvent Congressional prohibitions against US funding for war in Nicaragua. And I am neither defending nor denigrating said policy; it's simply realpolitik.

Instead, let's stick with the topic. If you want to argue that the US is the root of all evil, there are better places to do it.

Let's. And let's refrain from making assumptions about anyone else's political beliefs. Beyond a reference to the Bushies', NOT US, disinformation, I have not passed judgement either way on US policy. Get off your high horse.

However, it is ill advised to use this to draw attention away from the question of whether Civ4 should take the risk of advertising totalitarian systems and potentially even spread sympathy for Hitler and Stalin. Of course, they may be necessary in some historic scenarios, but I don't think that they should be part of the basic game.

My point, AGAIN, is that both Hitler and Stalin, on HISTORICAL grounds, warrant CONSIDERATION for inclusion in CivIV. Hitler, for obvious reasons, is impractical regardless of any moral considerations. Stalin, despite his bloodthirsty track record, remains a viable addition to the game (not that I want him; I'd rather see leaders from unrepresented civs). If moral considerations are to be used to exclude leaders, then by rights Izzy, Ghengis Khan, Mao, and Monty at the least should be excluded lest they "advertise" religious intolerance/ethnic cleansing/genocide, mass murder/warmongering, the Cultural Revolution, or mass human sacrifice. Even Caesar, Qin, Napoleon, and Alexander could be seen to generate "sympathy" for unsavory historical realities. Most of my Irish relatives would vote Lizzy out.

And finally, let's make this a "pontification-free' zone.

 

[Brighteye]

Yea, some others, like americans vs America's natives, or britan detention camps during Anglo-Boure war, yea?
At least I'm not repeating like dummy that holocaust existed because itexisted and tried to question some aspects of it's "proofs".
By the way, I'm proud to be called as holocaust denier.

You didn't actually deny that the Nazis killed a lot of Jews. You denied that it's proven that Hitler specifically ordered it.
Do you deny that any mass-murder took place?
Do you have the same view for Stalin?
Questioning proofs (that are merely evidence, rather than proofs) is laudable. It's not the same as denying something. Do you mean to deny that these events happened, or just raise questions about how we're getting our information?

 

[Dupson]

You re not being silly , hitler should be included in this game as well , no doubt about it. ( this is related to first post )

BTW to above discusion - check how many Kurdish were killed and ask yourself "hey , why the hell you can deny kurdish holocaust, but you cant jewish ???"
so how it is ?? we have the same rules for all?? or some special rules for choosen ???? huh ???

 

[cthom]

And finally, let's make this a "pontification-free' zone.

way too late...

 

[zafyro]

what kind of nonsense is all of that. In the very moment that there´s an issue with the presence of absence of a leader they should be removed at the moment.

You cannot deny any holocaust and it would be as bad if they include again Stalin or Hitler. Of course you have to include Mao if the same nation that has been prey of his rulership has not still become free of it and ask for it [and would be mostly offended if you do not use it]

The point is not to use or not use dictators or war criminals but not insult the people of a country by using one leader that does not represent them.

I would be offended if firaxis had used General Franco as spanish leader in the game [it's acceptable only as leader in a scenario, but for sure i do not want to be represented by him]

It would be interesting to conduct a poll between german people to know if they would be proud of being represented by a lunatical dictator as Hitler.

I'm sure that any self proclaimed holocaust denier would agree to that, but then it will keep talking about other subjects that are identically insane. Opinion is to be respected, but not over the crude facts.

 

[Crighton]

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the any of the following added in as leaders to the current roster of Civs:

Italian/Roman - Benito Musolini
German - Hitler
Japan - Hirohito
England - That Longshenks fellow from Braveheart whose name I can't recall
Greece - Perocles (think Peloponesian War)
Persian - Xerxes or Darius (ah hell throw in the Ayatollah why not)

Since the current roster of leaders already includes people who participated in, directed, contributed to or endorsed any number of unsavory events / attrocities we may as well go whole hog and throw in some more unsavory characters, it's not like Hitler's been brought back to life and is sitting at the computer playing, you're the one playing the game and choosing what path you want to take (peace / war / other) and more often than not YOU"LL be the one fighting against said personage.

 

[Pawel]

Unless you decide that you like his bonuses, or he just happens to become your best buddy...

 

[Phyr_Negator]

You didn't actually deny that the Nazis killed a lot of Jews. You denied that it's proven that Hitler specifically ordered it.
Do you deny that any mass-murder took place?
Do you have the same view for Stalin?
Questioning proofs (that are merely evidence, rather than proofs) is laudable. It's not the same as denying something. Do you mean to deny that these events happened, or just raise questions about how we're getting our information?

I deny that nazis killed 6 megajews as I see not enough proofs for that - and more - existing "proofs" are sometimes absurdic and physically impossible.
I do not think that mass meuders of jews took place - I accept version of high death rate in labor camps, but not 6 megajews or at gas chambers.
What same view? That he didn't killed 128572901 billions of people? Then yes - I do not believe that version. Purge existed, but not as it shown - like take every relative of "repressed", after all, why everyone postulate that that "repressed" was innocent? That's like disliked ebola=>nazi is bad=> ebola is good! Weird logic.
The whole point is that in europe it is forbidden to QUESTION, not deny. And due to analisis of proofs I'm ready deny holocaust, not "I'm denying, not let's search for counterproofs". It is forbidden to search for information that can clear all troublesome questions and for example shame "deniers" with proofs that could be found. For me it's indirect argument towards denying - if they have nothing to fear and know that holocaust existed - they could assemble a independant research and settle that matter once and for all and get rid of all opponents of holocaust existence.

 

[Pawel]

And your real name also happens to be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

 

[DAv2003]

England - That Longshenks fellow from Braveheart whose name I can't recall

Actually dward the 1st was a pretty good King. A complete and utter git faced monkey poo, but his reign did make England a strong country.

 

[atreas]

Italian/Roman - Benito Musolini
German - Hitler
Japan - Hirohito
England - That Longshenks fellow from Braveheart whose name I can't recall
Greece - Perocles (think Peloponesian War)
Persian - Xerxes or Darius (ah hell throw in the Ayatollah why not)

Hitler, Musolini, and Pericles in the same list. How much like these will I see in the "history" threads? Can you explain the connection between some lunatic dictators and a highly cultured and wise democratic politician, because I can't easily notice it?

 

[Joseph Stalin]

The whole point is that in europe it is forbidden to QUESTION, not deny. And due to analisis of proofs I'm ready deny holocaust, not "I'm denying, not let's search for counterproofs". It is forbidden to search for information that can clear all troublesome questions and for example shame "deniers" with proofs that could be found. For me it's indirect argument towards denying - if they have nothing to fear and know that holocaust existed - they could assemble a independant research and settle that matter once and for all and get rid of all opponents of holocaust existence.

you are so right,

I don't deny the holocaust, but there are questionalble things and so why am i forbidden to question them (because denying it is a crime)

 

[Ploeperpengel]

I deny that nazis killed 6 megajews as I see not enough proofs for that - and more - existing "proofs" are sometimes absurdic and physically impossible.
I do not think that mass meuders of jews took place - I accept version of high death rate in labor camps, but not 6 megajews or at gas chambers.
What same view? That he didn't killed 128572901 billions of people? Then yes - I do not believe that version. Purge existed, but not as it shown - like take every relative of "repressed", after all, why everyone postulate that that "repressed" was innocent? That's like disliked ebola=>nazi is bad=> ebola is good! Weird logic.
The whole point is that in europe it is forbidden to QUESTION, not deny. And due to analisis of proofs I'm ready deny holocaust, not "I'm denying, not let's search for counterproofs". It is forbidden to search for information that can clear all troublesome questions and for example shame "deniers" with proofs that could be found. For me it's indirect argument towards denying - if they have nothing to fear and know that holocaust existed - they could assemble a independant research and settle that matter once and for all and get rid of all opponents of holocaust existence.

You can visit the gas chambers in Ausschwitz you <snip>.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming.[/mod[
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Danielos]

I deny that nazis killed 6 megajews as I see not enough proofs for that - and more - existing "proofs" are sometimes absurdic and physically impossible.
I do not think that mass meuders of jews took place - I accept version of high death rate in labor camps, but not 6 megajews or at gas chambers.
What same view? That he didn't killed 128572901 billions of people? Then yes - I do not believe that version. Purge existed, but not as it shown - like take every relative of "repressed", after all, why everyone postulate that that "repressed" was innocent? That's like disliked ebola=>nazi is bad=> ebola is good! Weird logic.
The whole point is that in europe it is forbidden to QUESTION, not deny. And due to analisis of proofs I'm ready deny holocaust, not "I'm denying, not let's search for counterproofs". It is forbidden to search for information that can clear all troublesome questions and for example shame "deniers" with proofs that could be found. For me it's indirect argument towards denying - if they have nothing to fear and know that holocaust existed - they could assemble a independant research and settle that matter once and for all and get rid of all opponents of holocaust existence.

While I agree with you it is a good thing to be critical and skeptical of history, and that everything, even a subject as sensitive as Holocaust, must be open to critical scrutiny, I don´t agree with your interpretation. If 6 million jews didn´t perish in the Nazi gaschambers, where did all this 6 million missing people go? Did they just disappear??