The AH Debate

[rabidveggie]

How can you sponsor mass killings? What you think that mass genocide keeps the population down or something. I'm sure you'd feel differently if you were the one lined up and shot just for being a particular color or belief.

 

[Psyringe]

Well, he did give a reason (albeit not a terribly convincing one):

Evil is a word that has no place in history.
I actually support state sponsored mass killings as its probably the deterant we have from the Mathusian catastrophe.

"Mathusian" doesn't ring a bell. I think he means Malthus and his theory of exponential population growth. If so, then it's probably rather trolling / calling for attention than providing a serious argument. Malthus' simplistic mathematical model is a very bad match for modern societies anyways, and as far as a "deterrant" for population growth is needed, the ones currently in place (for example, making it very expensive to raise children) seem to work quite well. The population in many countries is steadily on the decline without the help of any mass killings. I don't think he was being serious. *shrug*

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Hitler killed people on purpose, Mao and Stalin starved people by accident. Hitler did not do Germany any good, and had no good deeds that lasts until today. Stalin and Mao left short-term disasters and (some) long-term legacies. Hitler attacked other nations, Mao and Stalin defended their nation. Most Russians and Chinese still revere Stalin and Mao for their deeds (and cursed their catastrophes), most Germans are totally embarassed and shamed at the word "Hitler".

You're so very wrong - i recommend for you to read biographies of Stalin and Mao. They both killed (and starved, Mao esp. while trying to pay his "superpower program" or when exporting lots of food for communist "allies") massive amounts of people, mostly their "own". Both were also engaged in bloody conflicts outside their national borders, and not for "defence".

Start with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap#Climate_conditions_and_famine

After that you should look for their purges etc.

 

[Yeekim]

I'm totally proud of this forum. It's the only place I've met so far that can discuss this topic in a civil manner. Civil by internet standards, definitely!!!

Agreed

Hitler killed people on purpose, Mao and Stalin starved people by accident.

Have you ever heard of Holodomor? Soviet rule change the most fertile area in Europe, Ukraine, into a place so famished, that estimated 3 -3,5 million people died of hunger and related illnesses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
And believe me, that did not happen by accident!

Stalin and Mao left short-term disasters and (some) long-term legacies.

I doubt if destruction of nation's intelligence and cultural heritage, utter waste of its natural resources, absolute wrecking of its economy and abolition of democracy for 80 years can be called "short-term". Speaking of human losses, the estimates for Joseph Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union range between 8.5 million and 51 million, and those for Mao Zedong's China range between 19.5 and 75 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_book_of_communism

Hitler attacked other nations, Mao and Stalin defended their nation.

Yeah. By attacking Finland in 1939, for example. Also, Stalin invaded Poland just for self-defense. Occupation of Baltic was for that same purpose, apparently...etc. I do not know much about Mao's foreign policy however. Probably he was more occupied with killing of his own people, making him marginally better neighbor to have.

Most Russians and Chinese still revere Stalin and Mao for their deeds (and cursed their catastrophes), most Germans are totally embarassed and shamed at the word "Hitler".

That is the second valid point you make. It serves to honor German people, who have been able to learn from mistakes and feel guilt and is really the best cause to exclude AH from the game. Nation itself should have the final word in the afterthought. It is only troubling, that we could not use that same reason to exclude Stalin, who was clearly included for marketing reasons...

And according to (un)reliable sources, the Russian peasents knew selling grain to buy industrial equipment would mean mass starvation, and thought it a willing sacrifice.

So willing, that poison gas, planes and armored trains were needed to convince them. (Browse for "Tambov rebellion" and "Mikhail Tukhachevsky" for more info). True, Tambov rebellion was not during Stalin's time.

Of course, there are always those, who are willing to sacrifice others. We need not look too far

All in all, Mao and Stalin were indeed more "successful" ... in their crimes. Hitler lost the war, they did not. I do not know, which way would the death count have been smaller.

EDIT:Nah, I was beaten to the topic again. Oh, somebody from Finland

 

[rabidveggie]

Oh Malthus, yes I've heard of his theory, however so far it has failed to come to fruition. A few people could argue that WWI and WWII fit his theory but not enough people died to meet his hypothesis. Thats besides the point as how is it fair that people in another country die so that there are more recourses for you. Besides the population is already in decline in countries such as Germany and Canada which goes against Malthus' theory so it has been disproved.

Sorry I went off topic again but someone who sponsors genocide probably shouldn't be aloud to voice their opinion.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I do not know much about Mao's foreign policy however. Probably he was more occupied with killing of his own people, making him marginally better neighbor to have.

Not really. He invaded Tibet, beginning a Genocide that continues to today, seized Territory from the Communist friendly (!!) India, and is basically responsible for the Korean war, as well as entering into it willingly. He also wanted Russia to give him the Transamur, like they would ever give that up.

 

[drkodos]

I am happy to see _________ has kept their word (again!) about deleting these types of threads.


Who's your Nazi Daddy?

 

[vicawoo]

Hitler helped found (or supported) Volkswagon, an example of a lasting contribution. The Nazi party did exist before Hitler. From some historical standpoints, the rise of the Nazi party was almost inevitable. The post-world war 1 legislature tried a lot of ways of preventing the nazis from gaining power, but they were in a real doghole with the war reparations, German's feeling they shouldn't have lost the War, horrible economy... Hitler did a really good job for the Nazi party. While the western economies were falling apart, Germany pulled itself out of a hole and became a very strong country. Fascism was becoming popular because strong governments were willing to make things happen, as opposed to be tied up in democratic process. Hitler was a strong leader who made his country much more powerful.

Here's the dangerous problem, you can't logically blame Hitler yet not blame the German people. There are plenty of extremists who want to do questionable things, but most of them are ignored. He got into power because he had a popular support base. Germany had other capable, democratic leaders, but they weren't popular enough and apparently they weren't as capable of Hitler. You can say people are foolish for falling for his charisma, but he did offer a way out to the Germans. His perseverance through his own troubled time resonated with the Germans, and he delivered.

Sometimes these strong leaders want to be militarily strong and assert their influence, which is why people have compared Bush to Hitler (not that Bush is evil, but he's making the same mistakes). Who's fault is it, though, the leader who is shaped by the times and their society, the society who elects them, or the world which shapes the society?

If Hitler hadn't lost the war, or had stopped with his early conquests, would he be evil? If he hadn't been so organized about arranging a Holocaust, and instead just let society harass Jews like their times expected (ahem, Isabella's inquisition), would he be evil? Remember that the Allies found out about the concentration camps at the end of the war, so they were afraid of him for amoral reasons.

 

[hossam]

allied intelligence new about the concentrartion camps the whole time.

 

[hossam]

i now slavery is wrong but every body in history has practiced slavery and for that matter a lot of people have supported mass murderings in history, this whole antislaver thing is new and slavery still goes on to day altough its not legal, and for that matter they already put in a police state civic they might as well have hitler since the two go hand in hand.

 

[Rancid Sushi]

"I support mass killings."

Okay, you can be the first to go then, along with your whole family.

Seriously guys, don't feed the troll.

 

[vicawoo]

I guess the work camps were public knowledge, but I'm reading that the death camps were unknown to the german people and the prisoners themselves. It also says some of the SS officers were a little shaken after they saw the camps themselves. It's probably like when some americans say they should nuke the middle east, big words, small imagination.

 

[Rancid Sushi]

I guess the work camps were public knowledge, but I'm reading that the death camps were unknown to the german people and the prisoners themselves. It also says some of the SS officers were a little shaken after they saw the camps themselves. It's probably like when some americans say they should nuke the middle east, big words, small imagination.

Only rednecks think the middle east should be nuked. They don't represent America.

 

[yewsef]

The destruction Genkis Khan has done to my civilization and humanity is far greater than Hitler. Not directly though. But the Tatar(huns?) have destroyed the most advanced city of its time, Baghdad. Destroyed billions of valuable literature (science, literature, cultural, historical, religious books) and killed MILLIONS of citizens. The river turned black(ink) and red(blood) because of this massacre. It is not only a massacre of humanity, but a massacre to civilization and research! You cant believe how many valuable information were lost there, these barbarian are not civilized, they are pillagers and savage.

Quote from Wiki about the destruction of Baghdad.

* The Grand Library of Baghdad, containing countless precious historical documents and books on subjects ranging from medicine to astronomy, was destroyed. Survivors said that the waters of the Tigris ran black with ink from the enormous quantities of books flung into the river.

* Citizens attempted to flee, but were intercepted by Mongol soldiers who killed with abandon. Martin Sicker writes that close to 90,000 people may have died (Sicker 2000, p. 111). Other estimates go much higher. Wassaf claims the loss of life was several hundred thousand. Ian Frazier of The New Yorker says estimates of the death toll have ranged from 200,000 to a million.

* The Mongols looted and then destroyed mosques, palaces, libraries, and hospitals—grand buildings that had been the work of generations—were burned to the ground.

* The caliph was captured and forced to watch as his citizens were murdered and his treasury plundered. Most accounts have the caliph was killed by trampling. The Mongols rolled the caliph up in a rug, and rode their horses over him, as they believed that the earth was offended if touched by royal blood. All but one of his sons were killed, and the sole surviving son was sent to Mongolia.

* Hulagu had to move his camp upwind of the city, due to the stench of decay from the ruined city.

Iraq in 1258 was very different from present day Iraq. Its agriculture was supported by a canal network thousands of years old. Baghdad was one of the most brilliant intellectual centers in the world. The Mongol destruction of Baghdad was a psychological blow from which Islam never recovered. Already Islam was turning inward, becoming more suspicious of conflicts between faith and reason and more conservative. With the sack of Baghdad, the intellectual flowering of Islam was snuffed out. Imagining the Athens of Pericles and Aristotle obliterated by a nuclear weapon begins to suggest the enormity of the blow. The Mongols filled in the irrigation canals and left Iraq too depopulated to restore them." (Steven Dutch)

Yet, we see Genkis Khan recognized as a leader of a Civilization?? while the REAL civilization founders are ignored. What a shame.

I say if you want to add Genkis Khan you might as well add Hitler. But Hitler is a Taboo to WESTERN people, thus, he will not be in!

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I am happy to see _________ has kept their word (again!) about deleting these types of threads.

I thought too these were meant to be removed/not allowed, but the sticky warning has gone away long time ago. Anyway, its good to have a garbage bin thread though were to point "why NO HILTER IN THE GAME!!!!" people, since A.H curse can (and will) destroy any thread here on CFC.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The destruction Genkis Khan has done to my civilization and humanity is far greater than Hitler.

The issue isn't about what Genghis Kahn has done to your civilization (probably Arab If I understood correctly), but what he has done to the Mongol civilization. And I guess it's rather undisputable that he brought something to the Mongols. On the other side, Hitler has damaged the German civilization a lot more than he has raised it.

I guess Osman of the Ottomans badly damaged the Greek civilization (or at least its influence through the Byzantine Empire) but he has brought a lot to the Turkish civilization, hence I doubt he's seen by them as a bad leader, and he has all reasons to represent his civ in a game.

Frankly, I really wonder how the idea of Hitler to represent the Germans could come up in anyone's mind. One must really hate Germany to believe Hitler is its best representative.

 

[r_rolo1]

Frankly, I really wonder how the idea of Hitler to represent the Germans could come up in anyone's mind. One must really hate Germany to believe Hitler is its best representative.

That could been said verbatin about Napoleone Buonaparte and France ( not french, tried a full European conquest, his armies did a big group of atrocities, lost , lost again ( in that he claery beaten Hitler ), died in shame trapped in a rock in the South Atlantic) .But France loves the guy ( I suppose that you ,living in Paris, know the story of his tranladation and is marvellously decorated mausoleum ) and... I you guessed, he is in civ IV and as a French leader....

 

[ParkCungHee]

Napoleonic Code, End of Slavery in the Empire, defeated Invading countries, etc. etc.
Not to mention is a national hero for france, and left France in better shape then he got it, not something Hitler can say.

 

[Marla_Singer]

That could been said verbatin about Napoleone Buonaparte and France ( not french, tried a full European conquest, his armies did a big group of atrocities, lost , lost again ( in that he claery beaten Hitler ), died in shame trapped in a rock in the South Atlantic) .But France loves the guy ( I suppose that you ,living in Paris, know the story of his tranladation and is marvellously decorated mausoleum ) and... I you guessed, he is in civ IV and as a French leader....

How could you ignore that Napoleon has brought a LOT to France ??!!?!

The French modern state is born from Napoleon's era. Actually, not only France, but the majority of European countries still use today the Judicial system inherited from Napoleon (cf. Civil code). It's only at Napoleon's times that France became truely a Nation, before that it was a Kingdom grouping a collection of strongly heterogenous regions.

Furthermore, I would say there is something cool about the guy. Too scared to see democracy spreading, all European Monarchs have declared war on France short after the Revolution sparkled. Against all of them, how much would you give to a brand new Republic which is still completely disorganized and having all its Generals having fled abroad ? Not much. And despite this, Napoleon has won against all of them. Napoleon has changed what was initially a defensive war into a war of conquest. That's what I call Epic History !

Of course, Napoleon is far to be an all bright guy. Indeed, his regime has been extremely violent in conqueered countries, and he has reestablished slavery that had been abolished few years before by the still young Republic. However, we can't say that Napoleon has reduced the influence of the French civilization.

It's a lot harder to say the same about Hitler.

 

[r_rolo1]

I don't want to raise another flame, but did I actually read that Napoleon

left France in better shape then he got it

? That is not true: finances were in shambles, most of the youth had died somewhere else, Russian, Prussian, Swedish and English troops occupying the country... I'm not a expert in French History, but France was in better shape than that when Bonaparte came back from Egypt....

@ Marla_Singer

Nappy has a certain je ne sai quoi, I agree, but I have no doubths that if there were PC games in 1830, Nappy wouldn't be a leader for a civ. Why? Same reason that Hitler is not: he was the symbol of a completely diferent world ( not better or worse per se, but diferent) and a defeated one.
This has nothing to do with the Napoleonic code ( that only started to be reused in Europe in the time of the other Bonaparte, a) or the Eugenic laws of the Third reich.
Going back to History: Napoleone didn't like freedom ( censorship, secret polices ( the infamous Fouchet ), a complete dictadorship of the worst kind. And the other countries... I live in one of the countries invaded by Napoleone's armies and I can pinpoint some dozens of things that are in Fance museus and that were stolen from here, not to mention the things that the French troops had done around here... Epic in one side, evil bastard on the other.
And to finish: what you said about Napoleone had united France internally, we could say about Hitler verbatin. Germany until the Weimar Republic ( and in it too), was a collection of german speaking countries with centuries of History ( Bavaria, Prussia, Hanover,...) sometimes united under the same banner. After the war there was a german nation ( divided by stronger foes indeed, but it was thinked to do the same to France in the Viena's treaty).
And there is one good legacy that the Third Reich had gave to Europe: the Welfare state in is today's form ( they were national socialists ). If that beats the Napoleonic code....

I simply stated that there is no rational explanation to Hitler not being in this game ( hate is not one racional expanation). Napoleone and Hitler, in my view are in the same boat regardind contributions ( good and bad) to mankind. One of them is in Civ IV and the other is not. Why? My opinion is simple: Napoleone died earlier and the Hate to him ( just look at the british cartoons at the time) had cooled off. Hitler... probably the people in the end of the XXI century will hate him as much as the brits hate Nappy