The AH Debate

[WilliamOfOrange]

Well, that war is still going on and longer than Viet Nam and their involvement in WWII.....so I don`t think we'll have to worry about Dubya being a leader

 

[rabidveggie]

How can you say Hitler was worse then Stalin? It seems to me that both leaders were very similar. Both killed millions of their own people, staked the war over a city with one leaders name on it, and were ******** tactician. Hitler was even democratically elected compared to Stalin's coup. I think just based on Hitlers enormous effect on history he should be included.

 

[Monado]

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.

How can you say Hitler was worse then Stalin? It seems to me that both leaders were very similar. Both killed millions of their own people, staked the war over a city with one leaders name on it, and were ******** tactician. Hitler was even democratically elected compared to Stalin's coup. I think just based on Hitlers enormous effect on history he should be included.

Lord Olleus' post on the first page is half true so far....now I am just waiting for someone to call rabidveggie a nazi.

 

[Saim]

I'm a bit rusty on roman history... but Hannibal rampaged through the entire Italian peninsula in approx a decade or so and beat the Romans one time after another until the last battle (fitting? )

I think the reason Carthage lost was manpower/resources not leadership, so it's seemingly fitting adding Hannibal as leader for Carthaginians since he was their most famous leader. So for me it makes sense calling him a winner. He was one of the great generals throughout history, it's too bad for him the Romans was very good at learning from their mistakes

(i'm not a history professor so i'm not an expert on this, so i may be wrong )

When you say he attacked Rome directly, that was Canae, a battle in the South, which caused many Southern cities to defect from the Roman Republic. He destroyed basically the whole Roman army. He failed at his battle to attack Rome itself though.

The reasons he lost are:

1. The leadership of Carthage wouldn't give him any more troops, in case Rome attacks they can just say that Hannibal is a rogue general and has nothing to do with them.

2. Africanus tricked him. They had a long discussion and then reinforcements favoring Africanus arrived.

3. He had to run back to defend Carthage, because he was loyal to it even though the Carthaginian leadership where jerks to him.


I saw this on a documentary recently

 

[thordk]

Hitler was even democratically elected compared to Stalin's coup.

hitler has been elected chancellor. this position didn't give him absolute power. his first step has been electing himself chancellor and president. this hasn't been allowed by law back then. so prior to that he proposed the "ermächtigungsgesetz" what allowed this. therefor he needed a 66% majority of votes from the cabinet. he got it... since behind every voter in the parlament stood an armed SA myrmidon.

 

[Alsark]

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.

It is a strategic error, yes, but what I'm saying is that that isn't one of the criteria that Firaxis uses to exclude leaders. Napoleon did practically the same error that Hitler made, as did many other leaders, but they were all included. I am not saying that Hitler had a good strategy, I'm just saying that they didn't deny him into the game because of losing the war. They denied him into the game because it would be offensive (and thus some people would boycott the game), and that is pretty much the sole reason, in my opinion; and that is darn well good enough of a reason. I think people are looking into it too hard compared to how much it really needs to be looked into. Maybe four generations down the line, when people no longer care about Hitler, he'll be in some games, but as of now it is too soon.

I'm glad someone else sees it my way and doesn't look at Hitler as a brilliant leader because he almost conquered Europe.

Since you quoted somebody who quoted me, and then made that response, I take it that you are saying that I said that, but I don't recall doing so. Hitler wasn't a "brilliant leader", but we cannot deny the impact that he has made on history. There are other leaders in the game who were not "brilliant leaders", but they did have a large impact on history.

All I'm saying is that the poor conditions faced by East Germany, in particular, were because of Stalin, and not directly Hitler. What if everybody who beat France in the Napoleonic War decided to split up France and starve it of its resources? Would it directly have been Napoleon's fault? No, but the argument would be the exact same thing.

 

[rabidveggie]

Wow that does kinda sound Nazish. Hitler was elected, but then I believe he burned down the German government building and used the incident to pass laws and initiate a police state.

 

[scy12]

It is a strategic error, yes, but what I'm saying is that that isn't one of the criteria that Firaxis uses to exclude leaders. Napoleon did practically the same error that Hitler made, as did many other leaders, but they were all included. I am not saying that Hitler had a good strategy, I'm just saying that they didn't deny him into the game because of losing the war. They denied him into the game because it would be offensive (and thus some people would boycott the game), and that is pretty much the sole reason, in my opinion; and that is darn well good enough of a reason. I think people are looking into it too hard compared to how much it really needs to be looked into. Maybe four generations down the line, when people no longer care about Hitler, he'll be in some games, but as of now it is too soon.
.

I agree with that but in your last post you seemed to ignore any Fault to Hitler for the result when his mistakes are also a reason for that.


Whether he deserves to be in the game i think we will have to ask what are the criteria . If they are popularity , effect on modern history and some leadership qualities Hitler should be in . If there are Axiocratic , who was the best Leader after Frederic and Bismark , Hitler may or may not be in. If the criteria are whether the public may be outraged , Hitler will definetly not be in.

I don't like the third reason even though i understand it.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Silly. I thought AH stood for Animal Husbandry!

Well even sillier me! I thought this would be about Avalon Hill.

My, what a futile debate. Which named "leaders" appear in the game is about as consequential as which named "civilizations/countries/nations/states" and that is about as consequential as which colours are used to distinguish the various factions. The historical backdrop is valuable to the game for flavour, but the game is not about these historical personages or societies. It is about division and conflict; it is about the development of understanding and its effective application to a society in support of greater comfort, growth, conflict, etc. (not in any particular order).

You could say it is about reaping the benefits of technological and cultural development and overcoming the problems that lead to conflict.

You could say it is about utilizing research to impose yourself on the known world.

You could say many things, but it is about the nature of history, not its actuality. I have long wished that the game could start up with a whole set of made up names and that all the "real" people and peoples were confined to scenarios.

Oh. And for the record, Francis Tresham invented the game for Hartland Trefoil, not Avalon Hill, who bought into it later.

Now can this discussion on Animal Husbandry please get going. I think it might be quite interesting.

 

[WilliamOfOrange]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=220093

 

[Rod]

Let me just briefly explain which kind of problem the Germans have about Hitler.

I will not argue with morale and the very true fact that Germany was in ruins and its reputation in the sink hole after his 'leadership' of only 12 years.

I will argue with something different.

There is a problem (especially in Germany) to portray Hitler as what is was - a simple human.

There is the tendency that people either condemn Hitler because of his power madness and his inhuman way of behaviour and decisions or the people glorify his as a great military leader who just made a 'small mistake' (that costs the life of 25 million people (Russian and German penalties)).

Both people are wrong. My generation of Germans is now slowing understanding that Hitler was neither a demon, nor an angel, but simply a man.
A very simple man indeed. He was just a pathetic little painter who could never forgive that a Jewish professor rejected his admission for the school of art in Vienna.
Nothing else.

His life was not a life of ambition and glorious failure it was a simple man's life. A life of a man, who believed himself to be sent by some divine power and till today people fall for it. But he was not the prophet of a new age, but just a painter without any higher education, nor the brains, who simply acted out of personal lust for vengeance.
The tragedy of German history is that by a series of unfortunate coincidences this man came to power (in a legal election, where he won a minor majority (33 &#37 ).
Like so often in history, if your average common simple man from around the corner is catapulted into the highest positions of power then he is getting intoxicated by it .. and this happened to Hitler .. nothing else, nothing less.

Besides I would just like to correct one mistake of my pre-authors.
The relative rise and economic growth of Germany between 1933 and 1939 was not the result of brilliant leadership but of merely deficit spending. By 1939 Germany was bancrupty.
As we know today that was reason why Hitler started his war against the mutual disagreement of all generals and military experts of Germany in that year. He simply needed the treasury of Poland and the other countries. It was the same thing that also a lot of African despots did to their countries after the independence. But history was merciful with Germany. It led Hitler kill himself, before Germany would become another Third World Country. Over-depted and with bad governance. If Hitler would have lived on we would see Slums in Berlin...

Do you want a power mad street painter who could not handle money to be portrayed in Civ among the Caesars, Peters and Washingtons of this world ?

 

[rabidveggie]

But his effect on history can not be disputed. Everyone in the world probably know who he is and what he stands for. Sure people will be offended by his picture and inclusion, but people can be offended by anything. No one is disputing that his actions were terrible, erratic, and vengeful. Even if he wasn't the strongest ruler or even a good one he still shaped the twentieth century.

Also wasn't their a possibility that Hitler may have had some sort of Jewish relative? I just remember hearing that somewhere.

 

[bonafide11]

Hitler was even democratically elected compared to Stalin's coup.

Well Stalin didn't really takeover in a "coup" either. He didn't overthrow the previous government, Lenin did that. Stalin viciously campaigned to win the Party's nominee to succeed Lenin, but it wasn't really a coup...

 

[PraetorianSteve]

Well even sillier me! I thought this would be about Avalon Hill.

Oh. And for the record, Francis Tresham invented the game for Hartland Trefoil, not Avalon Hill, who bought into it later.

I too, for some reason was expecting a rousing Avalon Hill discussion, about back in the good old days when setting up was half the fun, and pushing cardboard counters on a hexagrid was all the rage!

 

[Watiggi]

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)

When did Genghis loose the war exactly?

 

[rabidveggie]

I don't recall Genghis ever losing, it was a couple generations after him.

 

[Hawe Hawe]

To express why Hitler should not be included i am quoting from another thread:

So what, Carthage was also worse off after Hannibal's rule and somehow he is in the game. If we have mass murderers (Mao and Stalin) and losers (Hannibal) then why can't we have a mass murderer and a loser - Hitler. Unquestionably his impact on history was huge and, no matter what the Germans say, he's the ruler Germany is most likely to be associated with, not Bismarck or Frederick the Great.

The last sentence is important: allthough german history is full of positive impacts on the development of german, european and worlds civilization, in foreign countries we are still associated with the most cruel, inhuman and destructive 12 years.
I have no problem with the name Hitler and even no problem with the svastica as a symbol (although often mentioned: its forbidden in germany) in a historical scenario , because i can clearly distinguish between a symbol and the idea.

 

[Onagan]

The swastika isn't needed. You could make a picture of Hitler without it. And the German civ has his Cross pattée. And that's more accurate then using any other symbol for the Germans.

The in-game cross for the Germans is one of the best in the Game, (maybe the Egyptian and French symbol are slightly better)

 

[amaterasu]

To AH being in....no! It would just ruin the game, imagine playing V hitler, it wouldnt be fun, and then theres the glorifying of his actions by including him as a great leader. And his civilopedia entry? his religion attitudes? the personality? Mod him in yourself if you must, but many more people would not like to see him in.

 

[rabidveggie]

Most leaders are cruel in some way or other that are great. Isabella is in the game and she killed mass amounts of people based on religion during the Inquisition, Montezuma killed millions for sacrifice rituals, Stalin and Mao are already cited, and Peter killed countless people building his cities. For some reason I don't here people complaining about their inclusion. Why? Because because they still had a dramatic impact for better or worse. Why not include a leader that at least had some success and revolutionized the way we fight wars in the future. Is Hitler a psycho hateful, vengeful, mass murderer? Yes. Did he affect History? Without a doubt. Put him in the game.