The AH Debate

[Onagan]

Hitler had also success in Western Europe. And early also in Eastern Europe. His 'only' mistake was to declare war on Russia, i think. The reason why Hitler lost the war, was because this lack of manpower, his army was technologic advanced.

 

[bonafide11]

Although I'd much rather see Lenin than Stalin, I think Stalin deserves a spot way before Hitler. Like others have said, after Hitler's rule, Germany was divided and occuppied and its economy in ruins. The entire country was devastated. The Soviet Union became a super power under Stalin and it remained a super power after his death.

A Civ leader has to improve his/her Civilization, not destroy it...

 

[Saim]

No. Don't discuss. Abut a year ago there would be a new Hitler thread every day or so, and the discussion would always end up with one side saying: "He wasn't as bad as Mao or Stalin" and the other side saying "You're just a Nazi".

This has been argued to such a point that the mods decided to ban all Hitler threads in the civ 4 forums.

I did this because people are discussing in 'what ten civs will be in BtS' for some reason, not because I actually care.

 

[rabidveggie]

Stalin was a moron for the first few days of the war. He ordered his men not to fight back because he thought that there was some sort of mistake. He was not better then Hitler and ended up winning due to the countries size and manpower. Stalin got in because as already stated, history is dictated by the victors.
Hannibal in my opinion should have been a great general not a leader, but thats besides the point.
The final question comes down to should Hitler be in the game. Now I for one don't really understand the ban on his face and symbol in Germany. I mean if you are not reminded of the past you're bound to repeat it. I can understand why he won't end up in the game from a financial stand point, but I don't think anyone in this forum would debate that he had a large effect on history, just look at the UN. I think Hitler should be in the game regardless of his crimes because in my opinion he is more deserving then some leaders already included. I would also like to beat his face in with my vast armies since he would no doubt have the same temperament as Monty and you would not feel guilty for doing so. So if you're going to put in Mao, Stalin, Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, and Roosevelt in the game why not put in Hitler and have a good WWII scenario?

 

[Alsark]

Although I'd much rather see Lenin than Stalin, I think Stalin deserves a spot way before Hitler. Like others have said, after Hitler's rule, Germany was divided and occuppied and its economy in ruins. The entire country was devastated. The Soviet Union became a super power under Stalin and it remained a super power after his death.

A Civ leader has to improve his/her Civilization, not destroy it...

Keep in mind that the division of Germany was not caused by Hitler - it was caused by the victors of World War II splitting Germany into East and West Germany. This had nothing to directly do with Hitler, as it was a decision made by the victors of World War II. West Germany (also known as the Federal Republic of Germany), under democratic rule, was actually fairly successful in economic and other terms. In fact, West Germany had the fourth largest economy in the world (partly due to United States efforts), quite contrary to you stating that the economy was "in ruins". Though prior and during and Hitler also greatly improved the infrastructure of all of Germany, and the unemployment rate was drastically reduced (mostly due to the war effort). East Germany (also known as the The German Democratic Republic), on the other hand, was very unwealthy compared to West Germany. Stalin stole many machines within industrial factories to be sent to Russia, as he felt Germany needed to make up for Russia's loses in the war effort. This alone drastically harmed the East German economy, which led to people from East Germany fleeing to West Germany. This, of course, only further harmed the economy, which led to the building of the infamous Berlin Wall. So you claim that Germany was in ruin because of Hitler, while Stalin was a much more decent leader, and yet, the only part of Germany that was actually in ruin was the part that Stalin controlled. So I'd have to agree with the exact opposite of what you stated.

 

[anima36]

hitler was a great leader he was overambitious if he had settled for less land or a slower rate of expansion that involved using french factories to build more military hardware and used this to invade britain before turning on russia with the combined productive power of germany france britain spain and italy with america having no european land base the world would be quite a diffrent place today. as it was he got carried away, i think he is the only leader who would justify agg/cha traits.

 

[bonafide11]

Of course Hitler didn't divide Germany in two, he was dead long before then, but his rule led to Germany being divided in two. I never said that HE divided it, but great leaders don't end up with their civilization split apart. Germany was far worse off after Hitler's rule... And yes, West Germany had a successful economy, but not "partly" due to the U.S., almost completely due to the U.S.!

TO decide a Civ leader, just ask if the Civilization was in better or worse shape AFTER the leader's rule, and I don't think there is any doubt that Germany faced drastic problems after Hitler was DEFEATED in WWII...

Keep in mind that the division of Germany was not caused by Hitler - it was caused by the victors of World War II splitting Germany into East and West Germany. This had nothing to directly do with Hitler, as it was a decision made by the victors of World War II. West Germany (also known as the Federal Republic of Germany), under democratic rule, was actually fairly successful in economic and other terms. In fact, West Germany had the fourth largest economy in the world (partly due to United States efforts), quite contrary to you stating that the economy was "in ruins". Though prior and during and Hitler also greatly improved the infrastructure of all of Germany, and the unemployment rate was drastically reduced (mostly due to the war effort). East Germany (also known as the The German Democratic Republic), on the other hand, was very unwealthy compared to West Germany. Stalin stole many machines within industrial factories to be sent to Russia, as he felt Germany needed to make up for Russia's loses in the war effort. This alone drastically harmed the East German economy, which led to people from East Germany fleeing to West Germany. This, of course, only further harmed the economy, which led to the building of the infamous Berlin Wall. So you claim that Germany was in ruin because of Hitler, while Stalin was a much more decent leader, and yet, the only part of Germany that was actually in ruin was the part that Stalin controlled. So I'd have to agree with the exact opposite of what you stated.

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

Yes, I clicked on this thread hoping to get involved in a discussion of whether or not animal husbandry is an overpriced tech for what you get. Or should cavalry units just be more effective?

Why does a cow pasture provide hammers? Leather as a building material?

The cost of AH will seem low if you have horses in or around your BFC, and high if the only four-legged creatures roaming about are eating your scouts.

 

[WilliamOfOrange]

Clearly Off Topic Check this out instead

I do have to admit seeing a Agg/Char leader would be very interesting and defintely AH is the best candidate. There is no doubt about that.


As mentioned up above, the disparity between West and East Germany is a big problem even to this day.

 

[Alsark]

TO decide a Civ leader, just ask if the Civilization was in better or worse shape AFTER the leader's rule, and I don't think there is any doubt that Germany faced drastic problems after Hitler was DEFEATED in WWII...

Hitler was fighting a war with, for the most part, countries larger than his own. Italy didn't help out his cause much, and Japan probably harmed the war effort, if anything, by bombing the United States and "waking up the sleeping giant." Really, it couldn't have been expected that he was going to win, especially after the United States and Russia joined in the war. The problems faced in Germany weren't due to Hitler, it was simply that Hitler lost the war. Hannibal (who is in the game) lost the war against Rome, and yet, he was a good leader. Many of Carthage's citizens were then turned to slaves and all sorts of other harm was brought to the country by the Roman soldiers, but this wasn't Hannibal's fault - it was the Roman's, just like Germany's problem was Russia's fault, not Hitler's. I mean, obviously the extermination of the Jewish population was Hitler's fault, and that probably didn't help the economy much, but otherwise he didn't do anything, as far as I know, to harm the economy by himself. Napoleon (who is in the game), too, ultimately lost the Napoleonic Wars, but again, that didn't make him a terrible leader. I'm sure there are other leaders in the game who had a weakened empire after a war, but none immediately come to mind (and I have to get going somewhere). So no, the empire being left off in better hands than it was started in is not necessarily a criteria for the inclusion of a Civilization IV leader.

By the way, I'm not trying to defend Hitler - I'm just trying to defend certain historical points or other aspects as to why people suspect Hitler is not in the game. I think that he is not in the game for other reasons than our sometimes stated, so I am simply expressing my opinion. I'm hoping that everyone can respect my opinion as I respect their own.

 

[Samurai 2006]

Hitler for the win!

 

[Astax]

The result of his leadership was total disaster for the german people, the land divided in two and infrastructure in ruins. And at the end of his mad days he ordered the army to kill the german people.

I wouldn't call this a "great leader". Stalin/Mao did lead their people to "greater glory" in a crude way. (under Stalin Soviet became a superpower, and under Mao China became a regional power at least)

Thats why he shouldn't be included unless in a WW2 scenario.
Civilization is about winners, and Hitler is probably one of the biggest losers in history.

He left Germany how he found it. You should read about how bad it was before he came to power.

 

[rabidveggie]

He transformed a beaten nation into a strong one again he deserves some credit. As for his extermination of the Jews causing problems well... One of the ways he killed them was working them to death so they actually temporarily sped up the war effort through a very brutal way.

 

[Sjaramei]

He left Germany how he found it. You should read about how bad it was before he came to power.

I have... i think it was a lot worse after the second war than it was after the first. (the Russian soldiers raping their way in Berlin kinda makes it no contest)

 

[kristopherb]

A Civ leader has to improve his/her Civilization, not destroy it...

but don't you see he improved it by destorying it.

 

[scy12]

Hitler was fighting a war with, for the most part, countries larger than his own. Italy didn't help out his cause much, and Japan probably harmed the war effort, if anything, by bombing the United States and "waking up the sleeping giant." Really, it couldn't have been expected that he was going to win, especially after the United States and Russia joined in the war. The problems faced in Germany weren't due to Hitler, it was simply that Hitler lost the war. Hannibal (who is in the game) lost the war against Rome, and yet, he was a good leader. Many of Carthage's citizens were then turned to slaves and all sorts of other harm was brought to the country by the Roman soldiers, but this wasn't Hannibal's fault - it was the Roman's, just like Germany's problem was Russia's fault, not Hitler's. I mean, obviously the extermination of the Jewish population was Hitler's fault, and that probably didn't help the economy much, but otherwise he didn't do anything, as far as I know, to harm the economy by himself. Napoleon (who is in the game), too, ultimately lost the Napoleonic Wars, but again, that didn't make him a terrible leader. I'm sure there are other leaders in the game who had a weakened empire after a war, but none immediately come to mind (and I have to get going somewhere). So no, the empire being left off in better hands than it was started in is not necessarily a criteria for the inclusion of a Civilization IV leader.

By the way, I'm not trying to defend Hitler - I'm just trying to defend certain historical points or other aspects as to why people suspect Hitler is not in the game. I think that he is not in the game for other reasons than our sometimes stated, so I am simply expressing my opinion. I'm hoping that everyone can respect my opinion as I respect their own.

Wait a second sir... Overambition is a strategic error. So in that case it was also Hitler's fault. As is in all other cases where a Leader choose a battlefield he couldn't win.

 

[rabidveggie]

Many great leaders are over ambitious. Rome successfully expanded, but they could not hold that much land. Britain, and France as well took more land then they could hold and all of it slipped away. Many people have died from arrogant commanders who thought that they could win a battle and as a result suffered humiliating losses. Those leaders that are willing to risk the most have the opportunity to gain the most. Nobody is saying he was a military genuis, he was far from it however, his rise to power was unexpected and his initial attacks were extremely good, but he put to much faith in Italy and his Luftwaffe and as a result was never able to bring the entire third Reich down on Russia.

 

[thordk]

in discussions like this i really wish i'd be able to yield english words as like i'm able to yield german. the differentation between the things someone like stalin did in comparison to what hitler did are a battle of words. but when you understand, when you see the right words that are able to describe this "little" difference, you'll easily see that hitler has been the most inhuman leader of them all.

 

[bonafide11]

Wait a second sir... Overambition is a strategic error. So in that case it was also Hitler's fault. As is in all other cases where a Leader choose a battlefield he couldn't win.

My point EXACTLY! Thank you! I'm glad someone else sees it my way and doesn't look at Hitler as a brilliant leader because he almost conquered Europe. Hitler was defeated and left Germany in worse conditions than he found it. Yes, he found it in a state of depression, but the whole world was in a state of depression at the time. Hitler helped Germany overcome its bleek economy through conquest and exploitation, but it backfired and eventually left Germany
divided and occuppied by foreign powers. Hitler failed as a leader...

I admit there is an exception to the point I'm making that a leader needs to advance and strengthen his/her respectable civilization. Shaka, of course, was defeated by the hands of the British. But regardless, from what I understand at least, Shaka organized various African tribes into an effective (but not successful) army that violently resisted the British colonization. Although they were eventually crushed, Shaka's ability to organize the resistance represents a significant achievement for the Zulu peoples in the face of colonialism. Although unsuccessful in deterring the British invaders, Shaka succeeded in inspiring a previously unorganized people to defend their land and combat the enemy.

 

[cuchulain]

We all know what Alsark is saying though- If losing a war disqualifies you from being a great leader then half the leaders in Civ would have to be taken out. (Napoleon, Hannibal, Cleopatra, Monty, Alexander, Shaka, Ghengis, etc) Joan of Arc was burned alive for pete's sake. (mmmm... sacralicious)

What if we took out all the great empires just because they eventually fell? Do we really want a game where the only leader is G.W. Bush?