The AH Debate

[Mat777]

Most leaders in CIV4 was plain evil anyway. I think only Hitler was pure evil.

The only nation which don't play CIV with their people is Canada and few others. But of course, for brainwashed mind that YOU ARE, pacifism is nothing to be proud about... Proof of that, only imperialistic nation are in CIV4.

If Canada was roaming around with killing machine stealing the poor, maybe it would have a place in civ4...

 

[Heeringas]

Holycannoli (holysh-t)

What you say about Iran is stupid... Iran has never attack anywhere and won´t, but your country has and will...that´s a huge difference... IRan wants to be in peace, but USA doesn let them...WHY, because US goverment is bunch of criminals that want to steal goodies from Iran...

Iran is a great country. But without USA´s stupid actions it would be even greater...

And if you want, you can try to attack that country, but I don´t recommend... IRAN is NOT IRAQ... if some your president makes that move he will be consideres as New Hitler, because he will lose...

(Attacking Iran, would cause WW3...) Attacking Iraq and Afganistan were still looked trhought fingers...like all were looking trought fingers when Japan took part of China and Germanny Tzech and Austira...

And Psyring:

I didn´t say what other should be thinking I just told that I don´t get offended by the thing that the great murderer is in the game.

But yes I agree that adding Hitler to the list of great leaders could be insult for German... but one could take that as a joke, maybe? He WAS quite hillarious looking and talked funny...if he would have just been an artist, but he was little bit different composer...



But most of americns don´t see things like that...your Democratic fasicim is amazingly effective. It "looks like" everybody has right to choose and freedom and people really belive that...we ain´t free to choose, exept from certain selection of choises...

 

[Corn]

Comparing Bush with hitler was kind of joke... US media compared Saddam with Hitler...thats funny...How com?

How com[e]? . . .because they both have REALLY awkward moustaches!!

 

[Heeringas]

Well Hitler had quite unique moustaches, but Saddam Moustaches are more common (almost all middle east generals have similar), dont´say they are awkward... they both probaly used some specialist to trim them ha haa

 

[Barton]

Holycannoli (holysh-t)

What you say about Iran is stupid... Iran has never attack anywhere and won´t, but your country has and will...that´s a huge difference... IRan wants to be in peace, but USA doesn let them...WHY, because US goverment is bunch of criminals that want to steal goodies from Iran...

Iran is a great country. But without USA´s stupid actions it would be even greater...

And if you want, you can try to attack that country, but I don´t recommend... IRAN is NOT IRAQ... if some your president makes that move he will be consideres as New Hitler, because he will lose...

(Attacking Iran, would cause WW3...) Attacking Iraq and Afganistan were still looked trhought fingers...like all were looking trought fingers when Japan took part of China and Germanny Tzech and Austira...

And Psyring:

I didn´t say what other should be thinking I just told that I don´t get offended by the thing that the great murderer is in the game.

But yes I agree that adding Hitler to the list of great leaders could be insult for German... but one could take that as a joke, maybe? He WAS quite hillarious looking and talked funny...if he would have just been an artist, but he was little bit different composer...



But most of americns don´t see things like that...your Democratic fasicim is amazingly effective. It "looks like" everybody has right to choose and freedom and people really belive that...we ain´t free to choose, exept from certain selection of choises...

I have been here for five minutes at the advise of a friend and I already I have found someone putting Iran in a good light when it should, by no reason be there. How dare any man or woman on this planet living or dead insult the USA like this. It is because of them that the world was not defeated by Japan and Germany, it is because of them my homeland exists today, and I would damn say that it is because of them that your home exists today. Not one man, woman or child can say that the USA is great. A nation that may make mistakes through how it attempts to deal with international issue but still sacrafices billions of dollars a year to help the world. And before people say they get more in oil back from their conquests just look and and see the cold hard facts, the media is full of rubbish, or as some yuppie leftys would say, refuse.

The USA has not gotten anything from Iraq and people call them militaristic warmingerors because since second world war they have taken the true riskes to peace into their own hands. Sometimes in bad ways but they put their necks out for you and I. Nobody else with that kind of power does it now. The second world war was caused by this kind of joke. America stayes out of the international scene and is treated by the world like dirt for not getting involed and once they do, there said to be warmongering bastards.

Leave America alone, and for the sake of all is good and innocent remainning upon our great planet do not even consider that Iran could be a better nation than america.

Attacking Iran would not cause WWIII, if anything it would end in Iran being a glass crater, but thats about it. To tell you the truth with Iran's statments that Israel should be ablitarated at any cost, I would say a good ol' fashion invasion is just what we need. They've got the centrofuges going and the good times [nuclear bombs] are getting closer by the second. Iran is an aweful country at this time, not the people. THE GOVERNMENT!!! Take note.

Oh, and you can never say the American government is like the Nazis', they didn't have a holocaust, but then again if you seem to like Iran you either not believe in it, or like it. I don't know.

-Never compare the USA to Iran again

 

[Psyringe]

Well I think it's the fact that they included Stalin who is arguably just as bad a human being, or worse, than Hitler. And they included Churchill and Roosevelt. The only other "major" WWII leader they left out is the emperor of Japan. Having Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt just makes Hitler's absence very noticable.

This line of argument would make a valid case for including Hitler in a WW2 scenario. It's not very convincing for the base game, where you don't play WW2. That said, I'm curious how the WW2 scenario will turn out. Omitting Hitler there would be *very* noticable, I certainly agree with you on that.

I would respect their feelings too, if only they'd censor their own version of the game like China did. Censor it all you want. Because that's what you want right? You want to censor Hitler out of everything. So do it. But it doesn't mean I'll like the fact that a gaming company would rather not include Hitler at all than just give Germany a version they can censor to their hearts' content.

There are many misconceptions in this paragraph. Let me try to clear them up.

First of all, if you've really read my posts, you'll know that I'm not advocating censorship. As I said, personally I wouldn't be offended by having Hitler in a game. I just can understand why other people would be. Also, I hold free speech in very high regard, and I have certain hopes that neo-nazism could be battled more effectively if the respective discussions could be held publically, instead of pushing them into secrecy by declaring certain things illegal. However, I can assure you: When you've seen neo-nazis marching along the street, shouting racist propaganda, and your friend (who happens to have darker skin than you) tells you how his family lives in an atmosphere of fear because of such processions, then you're thinking twice about whether or not they should be allowed. It's not as easy as it looks from the outside, I guess.

Second, Firaxis is absolutely free to include Hitler in their games. Contrary to common "knowledge", including him would *not* make the game illegal in Germany as long as certain symbols (which *are* illegal, like the Swastika) aren't shown, and as long as he isn't used to glorify nazism. It would probably yield lots of bad publicity for Firaxis, and it's not unlikely that one group or the other takes the matter to court, but in the end the decision would be that the inclusion of Hitler is not illegal.

Third, it's a bit saddening to be lectured by an American about the censorship of Nazi elements in Germany, because it shows that you don't know the history in question very well. It might surprise you that illegalizing Nazi symbols wasn't a German idea. It was a decision of the allies after winning the war. That's right, the advocates of free speech all over the world declared these things illegal in Germany. Now, I don't blame them for this decision, it was important to achieve a denazification of Germany. But can you see how utterly ironic it is when an American now holds forth about Germans who "want to censor Hitler out of anything" when this is a process that was initiated and maintained by their own country?

I don't care about bringing people to my side anymore. I've found that people already believe in their opinions on the US and nothing is gonna change them. Too bad for them.

That's definitely not true. Here in Germany, public opinion about the US has changed a lot in the past decades. I know people who were very skeptical about the US when they stationed their Pershings here, and who then appreciated the US a lot when they opened up to international teamwork, right until a president showed up that trashed any international teamwork that had been there in favor of a policy of American dominance. If you're saying that people are critical about the US because they simple are that way and cannot be changed, then you're neglecting the quite obvious fact that the actions of your governments of course change the way other people perceive your country and its policies.

But that's way off topic here, and I won't even start talking about Iran in this thread.

 

[rabidveggie]

Maybe Iran should stop working to create nukes, and before someone says hes only enriching uranium for power he clearly isn't because he refuses to allow UN inspectors in, or let the west provide the Uranium. It was a poor move by Bush to call him one of the three axis of evil then invade one of them. I think the West really needs to do something about the current situation before the UN loses all credibility. Also its a scary thought that the Iranian leader doesn't believe the Holocaust occurred and is situated next to the Jewish state that also has Nukes. Bush although seemingly incompetent does do something right from time to time such as his Veto of withdrawing troops from Iraq. You don't walk into a country put it into a position of civil war then leave. Sorry I went off topic, but anyone who's read my previous post know my stance on the whole Hitler debate.

 

[Yeekim]

Too bad for them. I guess the US should just stay out of world affairs, like ..., providing Russia with the material means to defeat nazi Germany (how many people are still in denial about THAT?).

This was meant to be a positive example, right? Actually it greatly varies, depending upon where are you from.
First, it was self-defense, not just some altruism. US got attacked by Germany's ally Japan. Pretty natural US did find allies in Soviets and did everything to help them survive the attack.

Because of that, I am not saying US that was wrong or evil by helping Soviets fight Nazis. But actually you just helped one criminal regime beat another. And entire Eastern Europe in between them got very little to be really grateful about.
9.may 1945 does not symbolize happy end but grim beginning for us.

Nazis and Soviets were allies, who sought to divide Europe between them. I do not know, how widespread is that knowledge in US, but in 1939 they entered mutual non-aggression pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), with secret part, where independent Eastern European countries were divided into "spheres of influence". Soviet Union gave Germany extensive economic support, successfully manipulating Hitler into attacking Western Europe as an "Icebreaker", after what a quick strike from east would have "liberated" all of war-worn Europe - from Poland (which, as an obstacle, was jointly conquered) till Bretagne (or even Scotland). However, German intelligence disclosed that plan, and Germany was forced to deal a desperate, suicidal pre-emptive strike against Soviet Union.

Because of that, Soviet plan of conquest was only half-successful. However, it was finally fully executed up to eastern Germany. And while mention of the puppet is today prohibited as the embodiment and root of all evil, the puppeteer grins at us from CIV IV screen.

@Heeringas
There are no such things as noble and righteous political regimes or countries. There are just different camps. You'd rather side with radical muslims and imperialist Russia than with Western democracies?

Sure, in the end big dogs divide and eat smaller ones anyway, so it probably matters little.

 

[Barton]

I think I can save time by just saying.
Everyone shut up and put Hitler in.

 

[rabidveggie]

I was aware of the pact splitting Poland, but as for the rest of Europe... Also I was not aware of any Soviet plans of attacking Germany in the near future. I believe Stalin even saw Hitler as a friend.

 

[Yeekim]

Also its a scary thought that the Iranian leader doesn't believe the Holocaust occurred.

What exactly constitutes denial of Holocaust? I believe Jews were persecuted. I believe they were sent into camps to provide forced labor. I believe they died in numbers - many were killed, many starved to death when Germany was starting to lose the war and when it had neither enough provisions nor logistical means to feed the prisoners. I believe these were concentration camps, not extermination camps (as there is difference; there were concentration camps e.g in US also). I believe it all still constitutes a major crime against humanity.

However, I do not believe in gas chambers. I do not believe in 6 million dead Jews. (Gosh - even, say one million or half a million is an awful lot - is it not disrespectful for them to exaggerate with numbers??). And I believe that both Soviet and Allied propaganda has been manipulating with evidence to show things worse than they were and are trying to hide it by imposing historical dogmas. (Theoretically one might claim, that that ends justify means here and that history is being altered for greater good - to prevent Nazism from reemerging. Not sure, might have vice versa effect )

If I was in Germany, would my beliefs were ground for me to be held responsible for Holocaust-denial? Anybody knowledgeable? Psyringe?

 

[rabidveggie]

You don't believe they were extermination camps? Or Auschwitz main goal? Your right its all one large conspiracy done by prisoners in the camps and the soldiers that stumbled across them.
How do you universally lie about a six million death toll or schematics found of Auschwitz? Whats more likely, that the Allies lied about the death toll, or the ones responsible for it, the SS and the German Government are lying?

 

[Joe Harker]

I was aware of the pact splitting Poland, but as for the rest of Europe... Also I was not aware of any Soviet plans of attacking Germany in the near future. I believe Stalin even saw Hitler as a friend.

Indeed, so stubborn was stalin that he didn't believe the Brittish who said they had inteligence of an invasion, saying it was proganda, (proberly was proganda but correct propaganda!)

When russia was invaded stalin was said to be shocked and remained quiet for some time!

 

[Yeekim]

I was aware of the pact splitting Poland, but as for the rest of Europe... Also I was not aware of any Soviet plans of attacking Germany in the near future. I believe Stalin even saw Hitler as a friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
About MRP. Not the best of sources, but even the first paragraph is informative enough. Also check the maps further below. Soviet Union admitted the existence of secret protocols as late as in 1989, before its collapse.

The part about Soviet plan to attack Hitler is disputed, (check this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Suvorov), but for me it makes perfect sense. It certainly would have been possible, had Hitler not given first strike. And had Soviets really reached La Manche, I doubt they would have restored democracy there... . They would sure have liked to do in West what they did in East.

 

[Yeekim]

You don't believe they were extermination camps? Or Auschwitz main goal? Your right its all one large conspiracy done by prisoners in the camps and the soldiers that stumbled across them.
How do you universally lie about a six million death toll or schematics found of Auschwitz? Whats more likely, that the Allies lied about the death toll, or the ones responsible for it, the SS and the German Government are lying?

1) I believe there were concentration camps, ie work camps. Auschwitz afaik produced synthetic rubber, necessary for war effort. The main goal I believe was to provide resources for war, not exterminate Jews. Not that it makes much difference for those who really died, tho.
2) You know, afaik the number of six million has long since been officially taken back But it is still what everybody remembers... and believes in.
3) There have been bigger lies in world history than that one would be. That is no "universal lie", It has been disputed much. And since I do not possess means to go check myself, I'll have nothing but my common sense to rely on.
4) It depends on how things actually were Propaganda was (nor is) unknown to Allies nor Soviets

 

[Psyringe]

If I was in Germany, would my beliefs were ground for me to be held responsible for Holocaust-denial? Anybody knowledgeable? Psyringe?

The belief itself isn't liable to prosecution in Germany; you can believe anything you want here, that's guaranteed in our constitutional law. However, *publicly stating* that you're denying the Holocaust is liable to prosecution in Germany (as in Austria, Switzerland, and IIRC also in France, Belgium, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Czechia, and Slovakia, but I'd have to check my sources) because it's seen as sedition. Whether saying something in an internet forum qualifies as "publicly stating" it is debatable, the internet has been a grey area for a long time - I'm not competent enough to tell that exactly.

Then there's the question whether or not your statement is denying the Holocaust (because you do believe that people died, however you don't believe that they were systematically killed). In that regard, your statement clearly qualifies as Holocaust-denial, because the Holocaust is defined as the systematical genocide of parts of the populace (mainly Jews), and if you don't believe that this systematical genocide took place, then you're denying the holocaust.

 

[vicawoo]

Er, first, against raging barbarians, I strongly consider getting animal husbandry first. If there aren't so many trees, you can just tech straight to alphabet through animal husbandry (early granaries = death on raging, and on slower speeds the happiness duration is too long). If I don't get early bronze working, then I do something like a worker-warrior-settler build, which is important on raging (too much wotm practice, sorry) if your first warrior dies.
If I go straight bronze working and find no nearby bronze, I go animal husbandry for chariots (again, against raging). If there are no horses, then I'm forced to go archery.

All this weird political stuff:
1. my Iranian friends, albeit in the US, tend to hate a lot of the prominent Iranian leaders. That being said, most Iranians seem to be pretty cool people.
2. The US has done bad things. When I was in Tibet, it was hard to not compare it to the US's persecution of the native americans. The one thing we have going for us is that part of the population has "liberal" ideas and complains about the government doing things like torturing people. Even that sometimes fails, especially when citizens get more and more oblivious.
3. Emperor of Japan wasn't a real leader. It was hirohito
4. Hitler would be, charismatic industrious? aggressive? organized? Probably an overlap. I wouldn't diss Bismark.
5. Well, I know people who's relatives were in the holocaust, so it's kind of ridiculous to claim that it was theoretically implausible. There could be a debate: Point: "gas chambers, unlikely" Counterpoint: "I saw my parents get gassed". Point: "then logically you're lying" Counterpoint: so every argument will be refuted by calling people liars, which invalidates things like landing on the moon, every human rights report from china, and so on. I could ask again about the gas chambers.
5a. I think it, er, diminishes Hitler to think that he couldn't possibly have killed so many people. He was certainly organized enough to accomplish such a large scale goal, seeing as how he almost took all of Europe. The Khmer Rouge ended up killing 25% of Cambodia, so these things are possible. Then there's Darfur, the Armenian genocide.

Oh crap, I'm arguing on the internet again. I'm supposed to say, you're all stupid.

 

[Psyringe]

1) I believe there were concentration camps, ie work camps. Auschwitz afaik produced synthetic rubber, necessary for war effort. The main goal I believe was to provide resources for war, not exterminate Jews. Not that it makes much difference for those who really died, tho.

According to the Nazi orders, the main reason for the concentration camps was ethnic cleansing - a horrible term imho, but I'll use it because of lack of a better one. The master plan was to create a "pure" aryan super race by removing any "weak" elements. Weak elements were defined as handicapped people (see Euthanasia), homosexuals, and generally non-aryan populaces. The Jews were additionally seen as dangerous because (since they were used as scapegoats) they were made responsible for just about anything that ever went wrong in Germany, and the propaganda of that time was that the Jews actively worked against the aforementioned master plan of the aryan race.

The ethnic cleansing of the Nazis involved seperating the "unwanted elements" from the general populace, and then either a) sending them out of the country (e.g. Madagaskar plan, this idea had been abandoned rather early), or b) let them work as slaves for the Germans (this would have been the future of most Slavic people), or c) exterminating them. There's little doubt about that, as it's mentioned in the official Nazi documents (Generalplan Ost, for example).

That the people in the concentration camps were also (ab)used as cheap labour, or for medical experiments, was a byproduct of having these people under Nazi control. It certainly wasn't the reason the camps were built.

2) You know, afaik the number of six million has long since been officially taken back But it is still what everybody remembers... and believes in.

That's news to me. What are your sources? The estimates I've seen all range from about 5 million to slightly above six million. About four million victims are known by name in Yad Vashem, so that's kind of a lower border *if* you want to doubt the six million figure. But since whole families, even whole communities have been eradicated, Yad Vashem cannot ever collect all names, so the six million estimate seems quite solid.

3) There have been bigger lies in world history than that one would be. That is no "universal lie", It has been disputed much. And since I do not possess means to go check myself, I'll have nothing but my common sense to rely on.

There are lots of lies in history, agreed. But if that's your belief, then you can't believe in *anything* historical. It all could be a lie.

Arguing with "common sense" is kind of a trap in this case. From today's perspective, it seems hardly believable that people tried to exterminate an entire populace. But if you read about that time, if you see the propaganda, and if you try to think yourself into the head and heart of the "man on the street" in these times, then it suddenly becomes clear that at these times, "common sense" was something radically different from today, at least among a significant part of the people.

4) It depends on how things actually were Propaganda was (nor is) unknown to Allies nor Soviets

True. But in the same line of reasoning, I could say "Lies are not unknown to people", and claim that everything I'm being told in the course of a day is a lie. That's not a good basis to challenge historical facts, is it?

 

[Julian Delphiki]

All this weird political stuff:

3. Emperor of Japan wasn't a real leader. It was hirohito

Missthought, perhaps? Hirohito was the emperor, but how much he had real power is debated (Emperor Shōwa = Hirohito outside Japan).

 

[hossam]

hitler shouldnt be so controvertial because no permenant harmful visible effects can actually be seen by what hes done only benefecial to his victims the jews if not for the holocaust they never would have been able to establish the state of israel second germany is one of the most advanced countries in the world economicily it is in the g8 so everbody needs t get over hitler. also hitler had almost conquered europe if mussolini hadnt screwed up and if the usa hadnt entered everybody would have been speaking german right now and if he hadnt attacked russia.