The poll to stop any other hitler threads.

[Mrdie]

Hitler should be in, but not in the next Civ or in an expansion. Quite frankly, if Mao can be in (China went into poverty by the time Mao died), then Hitler can be in Civilization XII in the year 2261. Just not right now, since too many people will be offended and Civilization will be banned in Germany and perhaps Israel too.

 

[Stexe]

Fun to play a Jew-gasser, a man who murdered millions of people (Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, mentally ******** people, cripples) because they were "inferior"? He even gassed the children. But then, I know that those who want Hitler included simply refuse to grasp why the inclusion of Hitler is so repulsive to many; they always start to talk about Mao and Stalin instead. If they simply said that they don't want to see Mao or Stalin either, I could understand their way of reasoning. But no, they want Hitler.

No, I say either have the big bad 3 in, or have none of them in. The simple fact they ALREADY put Mao and Stalin in makes it less of an argument.

Also, I could rant and rave about how many other of the Great Leaders featured in the game made huge plunders and cause rippling negative effects. You just seem to have a personal vendette against Hitler.

If you want to not include Hitler because he was offensive, there are many other extremely offensive things still found in the game, ignoring the Great Leaders who commited countless atrocities. Offensive things found in Civilization include, and are not limited to: Sacrifical Altars, Slavery, Facism, Sabotage through Spies, Razing cities, Purposely starving cities to increase production, ect.

The game is designed to be a "snapshot" of various parts of history that have been important to Civilizations and culture in general. Was Hitler important or not?

Bottom line is this: I do not like that they included Mao and Stalin, but since they HAVE then why NOT include Hitler? The only reason I can see is possible alienation of sales in Germany, even though they could release a Hitler-free version. As for people who find Stalin and Mao so offensive they refuse to buy the game, they probably will not be posting here because they are included, although I'm suprised some people will refuse to buy the game if Hitler is included but not because Mao and Stalin are.

P.S. Do they sell Civilization in China? I heard someone say that they do sell it in Russia, but I'm not sure about China.

 

[Stexe]

I wonder, if your family had been executed in a concentration camp if you would feel the same way.

How can anyone vote "yes" unless they are just starting an argument? Are you all so ignorant that you can't see how the Hitler is worse than Stalin or Mao? It is not an enlightened point of view to suggest that others in history have committed atrocities as bad as the ones Nazi Germany perpetrated. However, the Holocaust might be the single worst act initiated by any man that ever walked the face of the earth. Whether you agree with that statement or not is irrelevant. Many, many people do agree with it.

Are you really so naive that you think the public in general wouldn't protest a game that allows you play as Hitler and take over the world? You think nobody would mind a game where you can be Hitler and go on a conquest to wipe out all of the jews in the world? The game makes it easy, they put little stars of david next to every city to let you know where the jews live (sound familiar anyone?).

This entire discussion is silly. Whether you think he belongs in the game or not is irrelevant. No single figure inspires as much hatred in the minds of the public as Hitler. No american video game company will ever put him into their product because it will mean lower sales, more controversy, and inevitable public apologies for being insensitive.

I suspect if you had family members executed in the Holocaust you might think differently. But in the meantime, why not show at least a shred of decency and sensitivity to those that did and stop lobbying for the inclusion of a genocidal madman.

If my family was killed in a concentration camp I would still say the same thing. It is a GAME. My grandmother went insane from a war, but I still play games that involve war. As for people who believe Hitler's actions were the worst actions ever need to go back to history class. I'm not lobbying to include him, I'm lobbying about the hypocracy of Firaxis to include people extremely similar to Hitler while not including Hitler at all. People only find Hitler more offensive than Mao and Stalin and other "warlords" because they are ignorant and are raised hearing stories about the horrors that Hitler commited. If they were told about Mao or Stalin from a young age and how evil they were I'm sure they would see Mao or Stalin as the "primary bad guy." In the end, I would not want to see Hitler in Civilization, but rather in Civilization: Warlords, because he was a "modern" Warlord.

Either include Mao and Stalin AND Hitler, or remove them all. However, since they already included Mao and Stalin, it is silly that they practice blatant hypocrisy by not having Hitler. Just have Hitler, don't have Nazis.

 

[Stexe]

Germany is the second largest market that Firaxis sells to behind, of course, the US. While there are plenty of people in the US who would like to see Hitler in the game just because he is a historicial figure who significantly impacted the world, there are a lot of German's who, as King Flevance so eloquently put it, would view the idea of playing as Hitler as Nazi paraphernalia.

Now ask yourself, should a leader whose inclusion in a game could jeopardize potential sales in the second largest market you target be included in a game? Of course not. End of discussion.

Do you have a source for this information? I'd like to see the numbers behind Civilization IV's sale in Germany compared to the US.

 

[kcbrett5]

People only find Hitler more offensive than Mao and Stalin and other "warlords" because they are ignorant and are raised hearing stories about the horrors that Hitler commited. If they were told about Mao or Stalin from a young age and how evil they were I'm sure they would see Mao or Stalin as the "primary bad guy."

I find it amusing that you call others ignorant yet you can't understand why Hitler is worse in the court of public opinion than Stalin or Mao or any other brutal dictators in the game. Do I really need to explain to you why attempting to eradicate the entire global population of a particular race of people is a bad thing? Do you really need to be educated as to why that is worse in this day and age then killing people who disagree with your world views?

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the ways of the world before you cast stones at others.

 

[Thjof]

Voted no and registered to be able to do that.

As someone said before the game would be illegal in germany with Hitler as a leader. And because the guys at Firaxis will probably know that, Hitler will never be in a Civ game.

 

[member66170]

I am disapointed by the lack of rationality by some people here.
Why should something be banned because it is 'bad'? Far more people have died from slavery than from Nazism, yet slavery is in the game. Mao, Stalin and Ghengis Khan all killed far more people than Hitler ever did. On a historical note Bismark said something like "It is the right of the German people to beat up Poles if they want to", and Stalin killed people because they were richer than he wanted them to be.
The reason all you people don't want Hitler in the game is because you have been indoctrinated into thinking that Hitler was the worse thing that ever happened and therefore should be forgotten about. That is both immature and illogical. If anything Hitler should be in the game just that people learn about him (through the civilopedia). Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to make it go away. Grow up and realise that Hitler played a huge part in world history and should be included in a game which is mostly a historical simulation.

I have delibaretly not mentioned German Law because this is a poll to see whether Hitler should be in the game, and not whether he will be in the game.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Also, I could rant and rave about how many other of the Great Leaders featured in the game made huge plunders and cause rippling negative effects. You just seem to have a personal vendette against Hitler.

Yup, sure do. So do millions of other people. The man was uniquely evil, and I am bored to death of people dragging Stalin and Mao into the discussion. No matter how bad they were, they were not as evil as Hitler, and at the end their countries did not lie in ruins because of them. That is to say, Hitler wasn't a "great leader" either.

Let me ask one final time: Why are some of you so extremely eager to play Hitler in Civ? Don't give me that old chestnut about how he "was an important person in history". So were a lot of other people that haven't been included in the game.

 

[King Flevance]

Like Abe Lincoln.

 

[Stexe]

I think the argument boils down to what you classify as "evil" and how you view Hitler as a leader. My view of history is different from other peoples view. I tend to side with the historians and the reports about someone on the History channel or other well known sources of information, not personal opinion.

As for classifying "evil," I don't see how that factors into him being included or not included in the game. The game is about history and Civilizations, not personal opinions on how evil or controversal someone is.

It doesn't matter that the Civilization was in "ruins" after his reign, he just failed in the end. Where are the Incas today? It seems that Huayna Capac failed too, but he is included.

The facts are this:
Was Hitler important to history? Yes.
Was Hitler a factor in helping the German people get out of the depression? Yes.
Did Hitler expand the powerr and influence of Germany? Yes.

The reason I want to play as Hitler, besides filling an "Aggressive / Charismatic " gap, would be because I would like to have a recreations of World War 2 and because Firaxis is hypocritical for including Mao and not Hitler, both left their country in "shambles" relatively. Sure there are other leaders who have not been included, but you have to pick and choose. I'd pick to include Hitler ONLY because Stalin and Mao and FDR are in the game. If none of them were in the game I would have no care to play as Hitler. I'm sure we all agree he is evil and a horrible person, but how does that affect his influence on history?

P.S. Are you of German origins and/or live in Germany or near it? If so I consider your opinion biased.

 

[member66170]

So where do you draw the line?
Stalin was evil, but not enought, while Hitler was. How many millions of people do you have to kill before you're too evil? 5 million, 10 million?
And, again, I ask you - Why should Hitler not be in the game just because he was evil?

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Do I really need to explain to you why attempting to eradicate the entire global population of a particular race of people is a bad thing?

As far as I remember, after 1956, there was some peoples in USSR which was declared ... "reabilited people" because Stalin tried to mass-exterminate/mass-deportate them - like the Tatars from Volga, the Tchetchens and so on.

So - I'm not very convinced about the valability of this argument in order to make a difference between two "mass-killers" like Stalin and Hitler.

However - I did belive that the german people didn't need to be insulted by assign to them such a leader, when they are more well-represented by Frederick or Bismarck. And could add Adenauer too for modern times/peacefull example .

Only in a WW2 scenario seems logical for me to include Hitler and Stalin ( and other like them ).

Regards all

 

[Stexe]

However - I did belive that the german people didn't need to be insulted by assign to them such a leader, when they are more well-represented by Frederick or Bismarck. And could add Adenauer too for modern times/peacefull example .

Only in a WW2 scenario seems logical for me to include Hitler and Stalin ( and other like them ).

Regards all

I think that is the reason for all the hostilities, they don't want to be "represented" by an evil leader. I don't think the leaders in the game represent the countries very well in their present state anyways. FDR was an amazing president, but he was also a socialist and had the government fix the problems with the Great Depression; however, today our society is capitalist. Does that mean he reflects our current values well? Maybe not, but I still think he was the best president we have ever had. If a horrible president was as influencial as FDR was then I'd still like to have him featured as a leader in Civilization. Now if only Harding did something important to history...

 

[Öjevind Lång]

As far as I remember, after 1956, there was some peoples in USSR which was declared ... "reabilited people" because Stalin tried to mass-exterminate/mass-deportate them - like the Tatars from Volga, the Tchetchens and so on.

So - I'm not very convinced about the valability of this argument in order to make a difference between two "mass-killers" like Stalin and Hitler.

However - I did belive that the german people didn't need to be insulted by assign to them such a leader, when they are more well-represented by Frederick or Bismarck. And could add Adenauer too for modern times/peacefull example .

Stalin did not try to locate everybody of Tataric or Chechen origin and gas them, down to babes in arms and people who hardly even knew they were of Tataric or Chechen origins.

I agree that one shouldn't insult Germany by including Hitler as a "great leader". That's an additional point. However, I don't think Konrad Adenauer quite cuts the mustard either. Personally, I feel no need for a third German leader, but if people want a third one from modern times, why not Willy Brandt? A Nobel Prize winner, a man who fled from Nazi Germany and fought against it in a foreign uniform, then returned to Germany after the war, became Chancellor and did a tremendous job rehabilitating Germany and achieving reconciliation with Poland and other countries.

Alternatively, one could include Frederick Barbarossa.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Stalin did not try to locate everybody of Tataric or Chechen origin and gas them, down to babes in arms and people who hardly even knew they were of Tataric or Chechen origins.

This is probably most due to the fact that Tatars and Chechens didn't spreaded before in significant number in to other ethnical groups and tend to be more "sedentaric" and not because of a higher degree of "humanism" of Stalin ...
Anyway - this is a pointless discussion. Someone could argue that the ideea of "racial/ethnical trace" used by germans was implemented by beaurocrats and not by Hitler itself ( which probably didn't care too much about "details" of its lunatic visions ) opposed to Stalin which left alot of notices complaining about ... "too little executions performed" in a region or another ...

IMHO the only real difference between Stalin and Hitler is the outcome/the way they died.

Personally, I feel no need for a third German leader, but if people want a third one from modern times, why not Willy Brandt ? A Nobel Prize winner, a man who fled from Nazi Germany and fought against it in a foreign uniform, then returned to Germany after the war, became Chancellor and did a tremendous job rehabilitating Germany and achieving reconciliation with Poland and other countries.

Mmm - yes, but rebuilding a country pillaged/destroyed after war seems somehow more impressive for me.

Regards all

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Mmm - yes, but rebuilding a country pillaged/destroyed after war seems somehow more impressive for me.

Regards all

The man credited with rebuilding West Germany is Ludwig Erhard, Adenauer's Minister of Finance and successor as Federal Chancellor. Of course, the Marshall Plan and the hard-working German population were no doubt much more important than the acts of one single man. The role of the Marshall Plan should perhaps not be exaggerated, since East Germany managed to rebuild itself fairly well without it - and despite being shackled by the Communist system, which does not promote economic health, as well as being exploited by the Soviet Union.

 

[member66170]

1) Hitler was our enemy - so he was demonised (which didn't take a lot)

2) Stalin was our ally - so he was made to be a nice 'Uncle Joe' kind of guy

its fustrating to see that even now people refuse to think for themselves and instead just repeat what the media told them.

 

[Armorydave]

More people would be turned off from buying the game if he was included than would be motivated to buy the game. From Firaxis viewpoint that is probably all that matters. It can also bring up legal issues in Germany that can be worked around but are an unnecessary hassle for something so trivial from a commercial perspective.

 

[kcbrett5]

Firaxis is a company trying to make a profit. Do any of you Nazi sympathizers honestly believe that they would sell more copies of Civ 4 with Adolf Hitler in it? Do you think more people would rush out to buy a game where they can relive Nazi Germany and hunt down and destroy any and every Jewish city in the game, cities that are clearly marked with the star of david much like the jewish ghettoes of the 30's and 40's?

 

[Öjevind Lång]

1) Hitler was our enemy - so he was demonised (which didn't take a lot)

2) Stalin was our ally - so he was made to be a nice 'Uncle Joe' kind of guy

its fustrating to see that even now people refuse to think for themselves and instead just repeat what the media told them.

Yes, from 1946 to 1989 the media were full of propaganda about how great Stalin and the Soviet Union were. Ha ha. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.