Why no Hitler?

[branter]

I just saw what leaders you will get in the expansion Warlords and much to my amazement and dismay Adolf Hitler was not one of them. If the reason for not adding him is censorship based on what he did then why did they add Stalin? I do not want to start any discussions about tyranny nor a discussion about Hitler contra Stalin. I just wondered if anyone here had an idea why they never added him.

Honestly, who would you rather play? Ramses or Hitler?

 

[Red Door]

Honestly, another "Why is Hitler not in the game?" thread. We have a search button you know.

Here's why they didn't add Hitler, because he doesn't deserve to be in. Plus, Firaxis wants to be able to sell their game in Germany, and with Hitler, they can't.

Please, don't try to argue that because Stalin is in the game, when he shouldn't be, that Hitler should be in the game.

 

[botur2young]

Ramses

I actually don't think hitler should be in because he didn't do much for germany compared with bismarck or frederick. however, the holocaust is probably the main reason he wasn't put in the game

 

[Marcus_Aurelius]

It's all about perception, not historical reality.

 

[Padma]

:sigh:

Please use this thread.

Moderator Action: Thread closed.

 

[MrZeddify]

Aight, I just got back from my holiday and am looking through the warlods info, being very happy about how it's shipping today, and wanting to play it badly, as an oooold civfanatic since civ1, I certainly was eager to look through the new features.

Then I come upon this, Josef Stalin is a playable character in Civilization IV: Warlords. Let me repeat, JOSEF "(&/!"# STALIN! How on earth can this be allowed? Then I thought it through, well, comparing to some of the other leaders, perhaps he isn't that bad.

Okay, that's settled then.

But here comes the question, if Stalin is allowed, why on gods earth isn't Adolf Hitler there? What's the problem? He was a murderer, a disgrace for mankind, bloody nazi, so what? Stalin was a murderer, a disgrace for mankind, and a bloody communist! Pest or cholera? I mean the old leaders from the medieval times and whatnot certainly had their way of murdering and such aswel, why is Hitler so bad?

I used to think it's too close to our own time, so people have not gotten over it yet, but well, then comes Stalin, now there's no excuse not to include Hitler as a leader.

I'm not a nazi, but I'm certainly not a communist either, how sick it may sound, if you are to include these World War II leaders, why leave the one responsible for it all out?

 

[Datian]

Although I hate this inept argument, I invite you to consider that nazism is a crazy, nonsensical ideology built on hate, ridiculous myths and mass hysteria. Communism is an economical theory, a political system, and a philosophic stream. Comparing them is like comparing olive oil and car oil, it's ridiculous, despite what the non-historian Annah Arendt may have said.

Considering Stalin, he was not only a paranoid dictator but he was also a great war leader, and built a huge industry in a mostly rural country. The country did not crumble after him. Putting Pol-Pot as a civ leader would indeed be inappropriate, but for Stalin, obviously, there are good reasons, although good taste may not be the primary one.

 

[ChrTh]

Congrats, you're the first person to notice and post a thread on this subject

The answer, as always, is simple: Hitler didn't advance the German civilization--he destroyed it. It has nothing to do with how many people he killed.

 

[Chaos_BF1942]

They want to sell in Germany, and adding Adolf Hitler may make it illegal to sell in Germany (if they have nazi symbols).

 

[PawelS]

Although I hate this inept argument, I invite you to consider that nazism is a crazy, nonsensical ideology built on hate, ridiculous myths and mass hysteria. Communism is an economical theory, a political system, and a philosophic stream. Comparing them is like comparing olive oil and car oil, it's ridiculous, despite what the non-historian Annah Arendt may have said.

The ideologies are different, but their effects are the same.

Considering Stalin, he was not only a paranoid dictator but he was also a great war leader, and built a huge industry in a mostly rural country. The country did not crumble after him. Putting Pol-Pot as a civ leader would indeed be inappropriate, but for Stalin, obviously, there are good reasons, although good taste may not be the primary one.

Hitler can be considered a "great war leader" as well, and he was also good at building industry. The main difference between them is that Stalin won the war, and Hitler lost it. After June 1941, Stalin was on the same side of the war that the western allies, that's why communism is more politically correct than nazism.

 

[Ammar]

The ideologies are different, but their effects are the same.

No. Only in a few ways.

After June 1941, Stalin was on the same side of the war that the western allies, that's why communism is more politically correct than nazism.

So? After that we had the Cold War where the communists were the enemy. So the more recent to depict someone as the "Evil Enemy" was against the communists.

 

[SpriteSODA]

He's in hell, burning.

 

[dh_epic]

They want to sell in Germany, and adding Adolf Hitler may make it illegal to sell in Germany (if they have nazi symbols).

Bingo. That's the difference. Stalin might have been an a-hole, but then so was Khan, Caesar, and Qin Shi Huang. Isabella was a ***** too. And Churchill and Washington were responsible for the oppression of many Indians (both kinds).

Hitler is the only one of them that is actually BANNED in one country.

 

[PawelS]

So? After that we had the Cold War where the communists were the enemy. So the more recent to depict someone as the "Evil Enemy" was against the communists.

Yes, but the communist ideology was quite popular in the western countries during the Cold War. There is still a communist party in France. The nazi ideology was not popular because:

1. It lost the war.
2. Many countries experienced it in practice when they were occupied by Germany during World War II, or fought against them.

That's why the communist ideology had more influence on the academic environment in western Europe and the US and became more politically correct than nazism.

He's in hell, burning.

Next to Stalin.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Hitler? He is in the dustbin of history.

 

[Zurai]

They want to sell in Germany, and adding Adolf Hitler may make it illegal to sell in Germany (if they have nazi symbols).

Doesn't matter if they have Nazi symbols or not. Depicting Hitler is enough to make any game illegal in Germany.

 

[Dagenham Dave]

The fact that communism is still alive to a degree has more to do with its viability rather than the fact that the Soviets won the war. Nazism is just ridiculous in every aspect.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The main difference between them is that Stalin won the war, and Hitler lost it.

Exactly, Stalin won the war. Hitler left a divided Germany that was dependent on the support of the United States in one half and the Soviet Union in the other half. I think you could argue that Konrad Adenauer was as good a leader, since he helped lead Germany back to economic stability.

I decided not to post the rant I wrote. But this question has been asked far too many times. Can't somebody use the search and look for the last thread about this?

 

[mostly_harmless]

I find Communism every bit as disgusting as Fascism so see no reason why they shouldn't put in Hitler other than the fact the far left is still seen as more socially acceptable than the far right. Putting Stalin and Mao in isn't going to get half the protest that Hitler would so why should they do it, their primary concern is getting people to buy the game after all.

 

[Panda]

Where is Hitler?

Well, his body was burnt. So most of him went up in flames. But the ashes were swept away, broken into tiny particles by the wind, floating in the atmosphere, until they were inhaled, joining with the host bodies. So, to aswer your question -

each of you has a little bit of Hitler inside you.