Julian Delphiki
Anton's key
Montezuma killed millions? Source, please?
The AH Debate
- Thread starter Saim
- Start date
rabidveggie
King
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 697
Millions, thousands whats the difference? I guess you can say he indirectly lead to the death of millions of his people by letting the Spaniards in. 
This may be off topic, but then a number of the posts on this thread have been. I see a disturbing trend among some posters to seperate Hitler from the German people, as though he was some natural disaster, like a tornado, who just tragically descended on them. Please see the book, Hitler's Willing Executioners. The thesis is that millions of Germans helped happily with the extermination of Jews and other 'undesirable' elements, and often gained economically from it. And it is a fact, attested to by generations of historians, that Hitler was wildly popular with the mass of the Germans, even until the end of the war. To try and portray Hitler as some average little guy who just happened by a cosmic stroke of good luck to become dictator of Germany is nothing more than revisionist denial of the guilt of the German nation for WWII. Let us give the devil his due. Hitler was the greatest orator of the 20th century, a master psychologist and, at times, a fair strategist. And yes, he was a monster. Anyone who murders millions of human beings is a monster. Hitler was a monster, Stalin was a monster, Saddam was a monster. You are your actions; if you do evil and monstrous things, then you are an evil monster. And let us note that anti-Semitism was deep and wide spread in Germany and Austria decades before even the WWI. There were Germans who opposed Hitler after he came to power; they were few and far between, however brave.
But one person hit the target dead center; when the word Germany is mentioned relative to the 20th century, the first word that will come to everyones mind then is, Hitler.
But one person hit the target dead center; when the word Germany is mentioned relative to the 20th century, the first word that will come to everyones mind then is, Hitler.
Mr. Delphiki, you are correct that Moctezuma did not kill millions during his reign but the Aztecs were as cruel and as bloody a people as have ever been. Have a look at Prof. Hanson's book Culture and Carnage (or Carnage and Culture, can't remember which). It has about a dozen examples of battles between armies from Western Civ against other civs and his chapter on the conquest of Mexico by Cortez is astonishing. I had no idea of either the magnitude of the Aztec slaughter of captives during their religious ceremonies or of the magnitude of the slaughter of the Axtecs by Cortez. This war was kind of like Germany vs Russia in WWII; two really bad groups going at each other with no holds barred.
Hanson did some calculations on the number of victims the Aztecs actually killed and came up with two staggering suggestions. First, if you were one of the Aztec subject tribes you were required to furnish wealth to your overlords, and this included some of your children for sacrifice. Hanson estimates that if you had 4 children, during your lifetime the chances were about 100% that one of them would be taken by the Aztecs to have their heart cut out while still living.
Second, one Aztec emperor (forgotten his name) decided to celebrate his coronation with a really fine religious jump around. He had humans sacrificed around the clock for a week, hundreds of extra altars were set up for the occassion. Hanson estimates that the killing rate, per day, exceeded that at Auschwitz. So much for the evil European, beneficent Native American theory.
This actually does have to do with the thread in that, if Aztec leaders who committed such atrocities are included, why not Hitler? He murdered more.
Hanson did some calculations on the number of victims the Aztecs actually killed and came up with two staggering suggestions. First, if you were one of the Aztec subject tribes you were required to furnish wealth to your overlords, and this included some of your children for sacrifice. Hanson estimates that if you had 4 children, during your lifetime the chances were about 100% that one of them would be taken by the Aztecs to have their heart cut out while still living.
Second, one Aztec emperor (forgotten his name) decided to celebrate his coronation with a really fine religious jump around. He had humans sacrificed around the clock for a week, hundreds of extra altars were set up for the occassion. Hanson estimates that the killing rate, per day, exceeded that at Auschwitz. So much for the evil European, beneficent Native American theory.
This actually does have to do with the thread in that, if Aztec leaders who committed such atrocities are included, why not Hitler? He murdered more.
DrewBledsoe
Veteran QB
The AH Debate :- Yes I too often take Animal Husbandry before Bronze Working, This is particularly true when I start with Pigs or Sheep within the capital's cross, or when playing as either Persia or Egypt...
Oh you didn't mean this Civ relevent AH you meant the Austrian Painter (yet again......... )
Oh you didn't mean this Civ relevent AH you meant the Austrian Painter (yet again.........
)
Julian Delphiki
Anton's key
I know what they were like. Thanks for the book recommendation (Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power), it's added on my evergrowing "to be read list".
Millions, thousands whats the difference? I guess you can say he indirectly lead to the death of millions of his people by letting the Spaniards in.
Yeah, man who kills one person is as bad as someone who organizes killing of millions but does not kill anyone personally. Right?
Btw, i really like the idea of turning AH thread in to the Montezuma/Stalin/Mao debate
.troyDoogle7
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 247
I really like the change they made when they made animal husbandry discover horses... I still feel that people will notice the 4 legged running things before they discovered how to mate animals.. So I think Animal husbandry is pretty redundant on that aspect....
What do you think?
What do you think?
Rod
King
You are absolutely correct that the Germans have helped Hitler. But you should not hide the fact that Hitler was the German Chancellor and his cabinet was a legally elected and even re-elected government. So what do you expect. Should the people now stop working because a few people get humiliated ? This doesnt work for the common people and it doesnt even work for the higher educated ones.
The main goal of every individual is to make the best out of his life (the Americans call this the 'pursuit of happiness'). If I am young and there is a new government completely reshaping the entire power structure of the country. That is vacating positions of power by removing certain people and promoting other certain people .. what do you think people would do ??
Please do never forget that there were only two successful revolutions in Germany .. and one was unfortunately the Nazi - Revolution in 1933 that steamrolled the land when the Nazis turned a small elective victory into a complete seize of power.
So the point is that the people were of course willingly following Hitler as it was in their best interest (except for the minorities who were declared public enemies by the government). But they were also following only as long as they had this positive impression. New research has proven that the support for Hitler halfed instantly and never really raised again after he started his war. The astrocities, not even the crude 'Master Race that has to guide the Minor Races' -ideology had never the support of the major population.
Germans are very logical people. So please consider the actions of them only under logical circumstances when you talk about the rather erratic Austrian Painter.
Hawe Hawe
Warlord
Obviously the Nazi politics were highly dependent on the support of the german people. The germans did support him mainly because of two reasons:
1) His aim to unite the socially highly fractured german population behind the idea of extreme nationalism. This included to overcome the (mental) depression of the defeat in WW1.
2)He presented a third alternative to the class-fighting(?) "Klassenkampf", that was always present during the Weimar republic on the one hand and the democratic system on the other. Democracy in general in the 1930s had lost the support of majority of the germans.
The war and the holocaust, surely the deepest and most cruel impacts of nazism on worlds history, were always in Hitlers mind (as you can read in "Mein Kampf") but were not the reason why he had the support of ther germans.
I think "Rod" is mostly right with his statement, but i wouldn't call the begin of the nazi system a revolution, because it was exactly the opposite: The nazi revolution in 1923 failed, so Hitler decided to use the weapons of democracy against the democracy itself. So on 30 january 1933 it was a formally correct democratic government with the support of the parliament coalition of NSDAP and DNVP. In my opinion Hitler committed a governmental revolution not from the base (the people) but the top (the government).
Back to topic, why should he not be included in the game: It's a historical german shame that the Nazis intelligently managed to get such a support for their ideology and their obvious atrocities later. Hitler as the personified symbol of nazism should not become or remain the personified stereotype for the germans. I have no problems with satirical Germany/Hitler associations (from Simpsons to Monty Python) but big problems with Hitler in a rather serious and history based Computer game like CIV.
1) His aim to unite the socially highly fractured german population behind the idea of extreme nationalism. This included to overcome the (mental) depression of the defeat in WW1.
2)He presented a third alternative to the class-fighting(?) "Klassenkampf", that was always present during the Weimar republic on the one hand and the democratic system on the other. Democracy in general in the 1930s had lost the support of majority of the germans.
The war and the holocaust, surely the deepest and most cruel impacts of nazism on worlds history, were always in Hitlers mind (as you can read in "Mein Kampf") but were not the reason why he had the support of ther germans.
I think "Rod" is mostly right with his statement, but i wouldn't call the begin of the nazi system a revolution, because it was exactly the opposite: The nazi revolution in 1923 failed, so Hitler decided to use the weapons of democracy against the democracy itself. So on 30 january 1933 it was a formally correct democratic government with the support of the parliament coalition of NSDAP and DNVP. In my opinion Hitler committed a governmental revolution not from the base (the people) but the top (the government).
Back to topic, why should he not be included in the game: It's a historical german shame that the Nazis intelligently managed to get such a support for their ideology and their obvious atrocities later. Hitler as the personified symbol of nazism should not become or remain the personified stereotype for the germans. I have no problems with satirical Germany/Hitler associations (from Simpsons to Monty Python) but big problems with Hitler in a rather serious and history based Computer game like CIV.
AThousandYoung
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2007
- Messages
- 399
What would be his Traits? Aggressive and Organized like everyone's favorite Diamyo?
Neither Genghis or Alexander lost many (or any?) battles; I just mean that after they died, their empires rapidly crumbled. But, obviously, that shouldn't keep them from being in Civ.
Julian Delphiki
Anton's key
Mongol empire actually kept expanding after Genghis (hoping for a G.K debate !)
!)
JesusOnEez
Emperor
Hmph! Hannibal only EVER won because BA could make him a rocket launcher out of bog rolls...or a tank out of a lawnmower.
Aggressive, Pissed
rabidveggie
King
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 697
Aggressive, Charismatic. How else could you convince people that killing millions make sense?
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
I would love to see Hitler in the game (no, not because I love Hitler!). I think Civ would feel more "complete" if it had it's share of "evil" leaders too. It already has Stalin and maybe a few other leaders who can be considered borderline "evil" (not many).
Hitler would nearly complete the WWII powers too.
It's a bit strange playing WWII games that include Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchhill and Hitler and then play Civ which is missing the most important antagonist of the war. Indeed, Hitler is the most important antagonist of the 20th century and arguably in all of history.
I know why Hitler is not included, but I don't like how every version of the game has to conform to the same law. Like has been said, look what China did to it's version of the game? Why can't Germany do the same, and let the rest of us have the German leader we'd all love to nuke?
Hitler would nearly complete the WWII powers too.
It's a bit strange playing WWII games that include Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchhill and Hitler and then play Civ which is missing the most important antagonist of the war. Indeed, Hitler is the most important antagonist of the 20th century and arguably in all of history.
I know why Hitler is not included, but I don't like how every version of the game has to conform to the same law. Like has been said, look what China did to it's version of the game? Why can't Germany do the same, and let the rest of us have the German leader we'd all love to nuke?
Hehe, the Mongol empire actually expanded faster after his death. And considering he conquered more territory than any other person in one lifetime, that says somethingMongol empire actually kept expanding after Genghis (hoping for a G.K debate
Buutt anyway... (hoping not to be responsible for starting yet-another-off-topic G.K debate
)edit: @cuchulain: I don't think Shaka was defeated either. The Zulu were when attacked by the British, but that was after Shaka.
flyingchicken
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2007
- Messages
- 3,783
@rabbidveggie
You can convince them by pointing out that the millions are the cause of your country's problems.
Aggressive, Mustache
You can convince them by pointing out that the millions are the cause of your country's problems.
Aggressive, Mustache
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
It also helps to have a really cool Oliver Hardy mustache and sexy slicked hair that turns all the ladies on. I mean, how can this not be sexy? "I do eat the stupid starch that I stick my tongue to with it!" (sorry to all of you that actually understand what he's saying...to me it's like the translation"
Kadasbrass
Warlord
Hitler made many many mistakes, Invading Russia was not his only mistake, merely his most well known mistake.
Stalin killed millions of people as part of a forced industrialization of Russia, think of the Slavery civic being used to build factories and coal plants in every city in the largest civilization on the board. That and his increasing fear of people ploting against him...
Hitler's polies against people viewed as "weaker race/human" cause alot of intelligent people to flee to the United States (Expanding the University system greatly allowing larger numbers of people to attend a university after WW2 in the USA). Hitler wasted valuable warpower rounding up, keeping them locked up, and killing people in the holucost. People who would of served Germany with as much loyality they had served Germany with in the first World War.
Hitler also tried to Micromanage the Second World War, making countless poor decessions against the expressed wisdom of his Generals. Ranging from the major decession to invade Russia to small decessions such as putting a number of army units under his direct orders in northern France, so that they were unable to called in to duty during what would become known as D-day till he woke up in the morning. He also forced his Generals to fight certain battles to the death that would have no postive outcome else where in the front, such as Stalingrad. Even some of Hitlers own generals tried to assassinate him because he was their greatest enemy to the war front.
Hitler was charismatic, under his leadership Germany was better able reorganize. But other then that Hitler was a nutjob that caused the self destruction of his country. Civilization reserves leaders for winners. Hitler had an important impact of history, but few of that was a good impact for anyone, not even his own people.
On a side note, most civilizations get some type of benefit from killing people on a massive scale. The death camps in Russia got labor out of people, gathering resources in inhospital lands. The Aztec sac'd people because their religion told them they had too to keep the world in one peice, and as a result people are happy knowing the world is going to survive another day thanks to their efforts. Hitler got very little resource out of the holocust, and alot more resources went into it then he got out, Hitler shouldn't be allowed in civ till you can spend production to kill off a population point (perhaps such a feature could be allowed to remove a religion from your city).
Stalin killed millions of people as part of a forced industrialization of Russia, think of the Slavery civic being used to build factories and coal plants in every city in the largest civilization on the board. That and his increasing fear of people ploting against him...
Hitler's polies against people viewed as "weaker race/human" cause alot of intelligent people to flee to the United States (Expanding the University system greatly allowing larger numbers of people to attend a university after WW2 in the USA). Hitler wasted valuable warpower rounding up, keeping them locked up, and killing people in the holucost. People who would of served Germany with as much loyality they had served Germany with in the first World War.
Hitler also tried to Micromanage the Second World War, making countless poor decessions against the expressed wisdom of his Generals. Ranging from the major decession to invade Russia to small decessions such as putting a number of army units under his direct orders in northern France, so that they were unable to called in to duty during what would become known as D-day till he woke up in the morning. He also forced his Generals to fight certain battles to the death that would have no postive outcome else where in the front, such as Stalingrad. Even some of Hitlers own generals tried to assassinate him because he was their greatest enemy to the war front.
Hitler was charismatic, under his leadership Germany was better able reorganize. But other then that Hitler was a nutjob that caused the self destruction of his country. Civilization reserves leaders for winners. Hitler had an important impact of history, but few of that was a good impact for anyone, not even his own people.
On a side note, most civilizations get some type of benefit from killing people on a massive scale. The death camps in Russia got labor out of people, gathering resources in inhospital lands. The Aztec sac'd people because their religion told them they had too to keep the world in one peice, and as a result people are happy knowing the world is going to survive another day thanks to their efforts. Hitler got very little resource out of the holocust, and alot more resources went into it then he got out, Hitler shouldn't be allowed in civ till you can spend production to kill off a population point (perhaps such a feature could be allowed to remove a religion from your city).
