Where's Adolf?

[Quitos]

i would agree with many of you. Me Barb comment above is true. Hitler just was another criminal, and the holocaust is just another genocide.. he and his genocides were not the first, nor the last.

but i think the reason of including Hitler or not should be based on one question... is it offensive or not. isn't it offensive for the jews to include Hitler.. if it is not, i am sure it is offensive for Germans to depict Hitler as one their GREATEST leader..

 

[me_Barb]

The limit on leaders is pretty annoying. I wish they could put all important leades for each country. . Or at least make more scenarios which include them.

Now that I think about it can anyone name a great leader that didn't actually have to kill somebody. Maybe just Gandi. The way history works killing people is the fastest way to greatness and place in the history books. There was a saying if I remember it right. "Killing one man makes you are murderer, Killing thousands a conquerer".

 

[carn]

I do believe the Crusades lunched by a very ambitious "world-domination" type of pope had begun in a vey similar fation. In fact they were even worse as jew, muslims and East orthodox Chistians were all butchered as crusades coudn't really tell the difference. Of course a lot less people were living then comapred to Hitler's time and nobody really kept count. Hitler was just one of many in History. There is nothing uniquely evil, crazy or genius about him compared to other historic leaders. It just so happens it is the most recent and we have better recording practices . Oh and hitler wanted more living space for his "superior" race. I doubt he was willing to go all the way to china if he could beat the russinans just so he can have a war with somebody.

It's in my eyes a huge difference whether someone wants to dominate the world to convert everybody to his religion, then the defeated ones should normally have at least left the choice to convert or to die. Hitler left for the Jews and many others just to die.

Hitler, if alive and WW2 won, would have done something about the number of indians and chinese 40 years ago. In his book he already noted that the "asian races", though undeveloped, were rather numerous compared to the number of germans and that something needed to be done about it, before they could acquire comparable technologies. Therefore the whole idea of living space to increase number of germans. But as the gap between germany and china could not have been closed before the chinese started to get a grip of technology, Hitler would have reverted to other methods.
And there were plans about conquering the middle east and india, as china was left to allied japanese.

Hitler wanted to conquer or dominate the world and his only reason was, that germany was destined to do so and other races, he did not even think it was necessary to invent a morale excuse.

Carn

 

[me_Barb]

You don't really think the Head of the West Christian Church, a pacifist religion at the core I might add, wanted just to convert the native inhabitants do you. Why in order to begin the crusade he had to declare the Jesus was misquoted and the concept of "It is a sin only to kill Christians" was invented specifically for that purpose. Why crusaders believed that by killing infidels their sins will be forgiven and they will be allowed to heaven. Another clever proclamation by the Pope of the time to get them all fired up to go. And not to mention the 4 crusade which didn't go to muslim lands at all but was all about pillaging Constantinople for the venitians who funded the crusade. I don't know about you but butchering almost all inhabitants of conqured cities including Jerusalem doesn't sound like a conversion attempt to me. In fact I do believe that the odds of surviving the Holocost were far greater then those of surviving the Crusades. Especially considering their time span. There were some pretty scary people in history and I don't think Hitler tops the list.

 

[Axxaer]

.
Deleted
.

 

[me_Barb]

Here is one Reason why The Crusaders were A lot worse than the Adolf's storm troopers. At least they didn't eat anyone.
http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/6476_comment.php

 

[GIO888]

Dudes!

It's only a game - well, it's THE game - so there'll be a MOD for Adolf the Gefreiter, and we can have the scenario, or not!

Not including Hitler for politicalcorrectness is a bit iffy when you consider slavery is a freekin Civic, eh?

 

[carn]

You don't really think the Head of the West Christian Church, a pacifist religion at the core I might add, wanted just to convert the native inhabitants do you. Why in order to begin the crusade he had to declare the Jesus was misquoted and the concept of "It is a sin only to kill Christians" was invented specifically for that purpose. Why crusaders believed that by killing infidels their sins will be forgiven and they will be allowed to heaven. Another clever proclamation by the Pope of the time to get them all fired up to go. And not to mention the 4 crusade which didn't go to muslim lands at all but was all about pillaging Constantinople for the venitians who funded the crusade. I don't know about you but butchering almost all inhabitants of conqured cities including Jerusalem doesn't sound like a conversion attempt to me. In fact I do believe that the odds of surviving the Holocost were far greater then those of surviving the Crusades. Especially considering their time span. There were some pretty scary people in history and I don't think Hitler tops the list.

There is always what a leader commands to do and what the soldiers then do.
Normally the latter turns out to be more bloddy, as with your examples of the crusades.
The pope wanted the retaking of the holy land and for that he allowed non-christians to be killed. That obviously includes, that it's not allowed to kill converts.
The crusaders did, as it has happened in nearly all wars, things, that he did not allow them to do and likely did not want them to do.

What was done to the Jews and others was exactly what Hitler wanted.

There is a difference between "you are allowed to kill them" and "kill them all".

Carn

 

[Danielos]

I think Hitler would have been one of the funniest animated leaders, though. Just imagine all his gestures and facial impressions, and that infamous haircut!

 

[me_Barb]

If I remember correctly it was actually Goering, Goebbels or somebody else close to him who gave hitler the whole concetration capms idea in an effort to please him and later implemented it. Hitler had bigger things in mind at the time and he had already used the jews for the purpose he envisoned for them - a scapegoat to get him a firm grip on power and ti put the people behind him. The rest is as you say. A case of overzealus efforts. I don't really think Hitler went to bed each night and "wet" himslef thinking "Jews are suffering. Oh the Joy". He was likely thinking about The Allies and the Russians. The whole "Hitler hated Jews" thing I think was overblown by overzealus movie maker and historians later on. Hitler viewed them more as a nuisance rather than a goal in life to exterminate. What he really wanted was power and an empire. There is nothing worse than ambitious overzealus clerks.

The mustache actually is the funniest.

Now that I think about it the whole Jews thing was also a later on addition. The extermination fevor included Slavs, Gipsies, Mentally sick and almost anybody else who didn't fit into the tall, blond and blue eyed standart. Jews was just one of the groups.

 

[Malleus]

THere is a difference between Hitler being a "great leader" and a powerful influence on world history. He doesn't have to be "nice" to be included in the game. Yes, he ran Germany into the ground, killed masses of people and adopted radical police government... which is exactly how many play the game. Do you really think G. Kahn was a terribly nice guy?

It is not about him being "not nice". Hitler was left out of the game, not because he was unquestionably one the cruellest leaders in World history, but because of the Holocaust and racist collocations that are invariably associated with his name.

Where as some leaders are in the game regardless of their ruthless politics that have resulted in the death of a lot of people, Hitle is not in it because he is the figurehead of intolerance, racism and xenophobia.

That's what I think.

 

[SlipperyJim]

The Nazi Holocaust killed about 10-12 million people, including Jews, Gypsies, and other so-called "undesirables". On the other hand, Mao's Cultural Revolution and other purges killed over 40 million (!) people. Yet Mao is in the game anyway. FYI, Stalin killed 10-15 million people during his purges....

It's a puzzler why Hitler gets all of the bad press, with some reserved for Stalin ... but Mao is virtually ignored. Part of me thinks it's Euro-centrism: Hitler killed millions of people who look like me (and a lot of historians), but Mao's victims didn't look like me (or many of those same historians). On the other hand, it might be that we still don't have a lot of reliable data about exactly how many people Mao killed because the Chinese regime keeps its secrets well.

 

[SlipperyJim]

Alexander the Great only lived a very short time and the empire he created vanished with him. Being of Greek ancestry not with standing, I am still amazed he is held up an such high regards by historians.

You're rather amusingly wrong. Alex's empire split into three parts when he died; it did not "vanish with him".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander#Legacy_and_division_of_the_empire

More importantly, Alex's conquests established the dominance of Hellenic culture throughout much of Eurasia. That culture was adopted/imitated by the Romans, and its effects are still felt today.

 

[panzerboy]

If Hitler was not one of the greatest (not good), most influential leaders of all time, then why does he illicit such strong responses 6 decades later?

Most of the Leaders included in Civ 4 had terrible crimes perpetrated under their rule. Alexander had entire cities laid to waste if he was pissed off enough, Genghis we know was no angel when he wanted to make a point, just to name a few. Only Ghandi really stands out as a 'good' leader.

Even President Roosevelt initiated the Pacific war by embargoing oil to Japan, thereby setting into motion conflict that killed millions. He did not start the war, but he and his advisers knew damn well what measures the Japanese would have to take to maintain their rapidly modernising economy and military. Who's worse, the fellow who goads another into throwing punches or the person who got sucked into throwin' em? tough call...

It is the victor who writes the history. Imagine if Hitler had won the war (shudder) The demonised politicians would be Truman, Stalin and Churchill and the Germans would hailing their proud, noble leader for granting them ultimate victory over the forces of Communism and Zionism.

But he tried to wipe out the Jews you say, that is why he is much worse than everybody else? He was not the first to try and kill lots of Jews (lets not forget homosexuals, Slavic peoples, Romas (gypsies) and many other 'lesser' races), that has been a European tradition for many, many centuries (pogroms anyone?), passed on to them by the Romans and Egyptians before them, so please a little perspective everyone....Lets not forget the Spanish wiping out the Incan and Aztec cultures through looting, slavery and disease, the destruction of the native American culture and enslavement of millions of black africans by America, the attempted annihlation of the Armenians and Kurds (even to this day)by the Turks, the the genocide of Kulaks by Stalin, the enslavement and looting of India and China by the English empire, the list goes on and on...

Bad people and deeds are common in history, that is a fact. Hitler was just another 'bad person' who was a great leader of history.

 

[sealboy6]

I'm sorry, but this is a laugh. But then, this is the kind of wacko analysis I'd expect coming from someone who quotes Ann Rand.

You mean to say that he didn't bring them out of a depression? Hitler did bring them out of a depression. The reperations they had to pay and the demilitarization of the country after world war I bankrupted them. He also came to power legally, by making friends in high places and then being given a chancellor position.

To Germans burdened by reparations payments to the victors of World War I, and threatened by hyperinflation, political chaos, and a possible Communist takeover, Hitler, frenzied yet magnetic, offered scapegoats and solutions. To the economically depressed he promised to despoil “Jew financiers,” to workers he promised security. He gained the financial support of bankers and industrialists with his virulent anti-Communism and promises to control trade unionism.

Hitler had a keen and sinister insight into mass psychology, and he was a master of intrigue and maneuver. After acquiring German citizenship through the state of Brunswick, he ran in the presidential elections of 1932, losing to the popular war hero Paul von Hindenburg but strengthening his position by falsely promising to support Chancellor Franz von Papen, who lifted the ban on the storm troops (June, 1932).

When the Nazis were elected the largest party in the Reichstag (July, 1932), Hindenburg offered Hitler a subordinate position in the cabinet. Hitler held out for the chief post and for sweeping powers. The chancellorship went instead to Kurt von Schleicher, who resigned on Jan. 28, 1933. Amid collapsing parliamentary government and pitched battles between Nazis and Communists, Hindenburg, on the urging of von Papen, called Hitler to be chancellor of a coalition cabinet, refusing him extraordinary powers. Supported by Alfred Hugenberg, Hitler took office on Jan. 30.

Is there something I missed? I don't know. I'm just saying what I've read and learned in AP Euro. If you can disprove me, go ahead. That'll be good for me, since I really would learn something new. Thanks.

 

[Yooka]

If Hitler was not one of the greatest (not good), most influential leaders of all time, then why does he illicit such strong responses 6 decades later?

I think the key to better understanding this issue (and progressing the discussion past points that the many other threads on this issue have floundered on) lies in separating the terms great and influential when it comes to empire leaders.

I don't see how anyone can possibly make an argument that Hitler wasn't influential enough to deserve consideration. However, even though I side with you panzer, I do see the other perspective saying he may not have been great enough, meaning competant enough to make the game.

And has been said ad nauseum... even if you give Adolf the benefit of the doubt on leadership capabilities, he's not getting in the game simply because he is too contraversial, and the press would eat up any game where you could BE ADOLF HITLER (oh n0es!! the childr3ns!!!)

Most of the Leaders included in Civ 4 had terrible crimes perpetrated under their rule. Alexander had entire cities laid to waste if he was pissed off enough, Genghis we know was no angel when he wanted to make a point, just to name a few. Only Ghandi really stands out as a 'good' leader.

Lets try not to threadjack ourselves with this one. Yes, other leaders have done bad things to many people. Most people (myself included) think that setting up a mechanized system of genocide in the middle of Europe in one of the most "enlightened" *cough-cough* nations in the world puts him in a league of his own. An evil league.

While I believe there are several holes in your interpretation of WWII, I don't feel this is the place to get into them, and I would encourage future posts not to get into it here, lest we risk the thread being closed.

Bad people and deeds are common in history, that is a fact. Hitler was just another 'bad person' who was a great leader of history.

Again, subjective, and more importantly irrelevant. I find the more persuasive arguments against Hitler being in the game (besides the aforementioned PR headache for Firaxis if they did) center around the kinds of acheivments he made in comparision to his Germanic counterparts. I don't know much about Frederick and Bismarck. But personally, pulling Germany out of the depression by their bootstraps, rallying the majority nation into a ferverous national party (despite the handcuffs of the Versailles Treaty), implementing the most efficient form of facism ever, and creating a war machine that overtook much of Europe, taking Paris and virtually bombing the UK out of Global Politics for a few decades.... that's pretty freakin' impressive to me.

EDIT: Quick clarification on my opening remarks on this one. Ashley Simpson is "influential" too. It doesn't make her great. Notoriety is not greatness. Hitler is more well known than many of Civ 4's leaders for being reviled... and for being more recent. For the sake of this argument, let's rate "great" by way of accomplishments and their approximate difficulty.

 

[Yooka]

I'm sorry, but this is a laugh. But then, this is the kind of wacko analysis I'd expect coming from someone who quotes Ann Rand.

I'd be interested in hearing more details about your claims of his mediocrity rather than broad sweeping claims with no backing, and personal attacks.

 

[sealboy6]

Sorry bout the double post. Wanted to post on two seperate items.

Even President Roosevelt initiated the Pacific war by embargoing oil to Japan, thereby setting into motion conflict that killed millions. He did not start the war, but he and his advisers knew damn well what measures the Japanese would have to take to maintain their rapidly modernising economy and military. Who's worse, the fellow who goads another into throwing punches or the person who got sucked into throwin' em? tough call...

I don't think putting an embargo on a country is really evil, if the only reason you did it was because they invaded another country. Who's worse, the person who was sucked into goading another person to punch him, or the person who punched another person, thereby sucking in another person to goad him into punching him back. Heh... Confusing...

But he tried to wipe out the Jews you say, that is why he is much worse than everybody else? He was not the first to try and kill lots of Jews (lets not forget homosexuals, Slavic peoples, Romas (gypsies) and many other 'lesser' races), that has been a European tradition for many, many centuries (pogroms anyone?), passed on to them by the Romans and Egyptians before them, so please a little perspective everyone....Lets not forget the Spanish wiping out the Incan and Aztec cultures through looting, slavery and disease, the destruction of the native American culture and enslavement of millions of black africans by America, the attempted annihlation of the Armenians and Kurds (even to this day)by the Turks, the the genocide of Kulaks by Stalin, the enslavement and looting of India and China by the English empire, the list goes on and on...

...the Spanish wiping out Jews and Protestants during their inquistion, led by ISABELLA, the Holy Roman Empire attacking protestants, which the pope responded to by ringing a bell, the Catholics going on a crusade against muslims and everybody in their way, the english spreading opium throughout China...

 

[cordash]

Hitler was a pyschopath. Controlling a nation through murder and mass genocide does not make someone a great leader. He represents one of the darkest hours in human history, and shouldnt be remembered as anything other than a lunatic.

while many other leaders in the past have been immoral, none were even close to hitler. To be a great leader wouldnt you have to leave a positive lasting effect on your citizens? Name one good thing Hitler accomplished for Germany that lasted after the war.

Ceaser, Genghis, Alexander, Napoleon all had lasting positive effects on their respective cultures.

with that said, i would love the opportunity to beat the living snot out of hitler in Civ IV. But he should only be playable by the computer and definately not available in the standard version of the game.

Also, I kinda think it is wrong for Mao to be in this game, when Hitler and Stalin arent. Mao ended up killing more total people than Hitler or Stalin. At least Hitler just killed all the jews through gas chambers. Mao engineered a fricking famine to kill off his population. Mao, hitler, and Stalin were all way too pyscho to be considered anything other than just that.

 

[xonixs]

Hitler could be a world wonder



omg... It will give one ekstra hit point to all units.