Which leaders you'd change - Page 2

vondrack · July 16, 2002, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Incan_Warrior
Vondrack -

Please check out my earlier post. I still think those opposing Hitler/Stalin/Napoleon are approaching the topic from the wrong angle. Civilization is not a game for peace-lovers, and, to be honest, many many many players use strategies that resemble the strategies Hitler implemented during WW2: He made his own population suffer, terrorized/enslaved/killed anyone that stood in his way and made no excuses for it. How many times have you, while playing Civ 3, broken a peace treaty, killed off your own population to rush a city improvement, razed a city, destroyed an entire civilization? It isn't a stretch to say that playing Civ 3 is vicariously carrying out the very plans Hitler dreamed of. THUS, you and others shouldn't be disgusted by a proposition that Hitler be a leader, you should instead be disgusted when real-life peaceful leaders, like Ghandi, are thrust into a game that revolves around war.

Well, I do not know if my angle is wrong or not. However, it is mine and as I have said before, I am 100% sure I am not going to change it. While your reasoning may seem ok to you, it seems just insane to me. Civ3 is a game and even if I sometimes resort to playing techniques that would be reflected in the real world as those that Hitler used, I do so only because it is a game. I am not killing anyone, I just remove units from the map. No blood spilt. Hitler reminds me of atrocities so appaling that I would consider even playing a game featuring him as disgusting.

Most of the leaders featured in Civ3 did something positive for their nation:

Caesar - expanded and united the Roman empire, improved and strenghtened its military, did a number of important administrative, tax, and social reforms.
Cleopatra - managed to diplomatically maintain Egypt's independence for many years, when the whole rest of the Mediterranean was conquered by Romans.
Alexander - defeated the longtime Greece's enemy, the Persians, created a huge empire under his/Greek rule (although it crumbled shortly after his death).
Hammurabi - gave the world the very first set of laws surviving to our times (it was under his rule that Babylon started using this set of laws).
Bismarck - through wars and diplomacy, he united the most of individual German states into one single country, forming the basics of what we today know as Germany.
Catherine - expanded the Russian empire on the expense of Turkey and Poland, did a lot to improve the education system in Russia.
Montezuma - greatly expanded the Aztec empire in the first two decades of the 16th century (although later failed to save his nation from the Spanish, mostly for religion related reasons).
Shaka - effectively founded the Zulu empire; created a fighting force that dominated the area.
Hiawatha - more of a legendary figure, tho, but attributed to be the founder if Iroquois Confederacy and an incarnation of human progress and civilization.
Elizabeth - under her rule, England thrived, successfully defended against Spain, expanded all over the globe.
Xerxes - although he managed to improve Persia's domestic stability, he failed to subdue Greece, which he attempted... this leader seems to be a candidate for replacement as under his rule, the decline of the Persian empire started.
Gandhi - lead India to independence, showing extraordinarily strong will while never resorting to violence.
Joan - become an icon, or a catalyser of the French resistance against England in the 15th century. Although her historical importance may be doubted, there is no doubt that she is associated with a period that saw things improving for France. I do agree that she would be a good candidate for a replacement tho...
Tokugawa - this one is rather interesting, as Tokugawa was a ruling dynasty, not a single ruler... however, under the Tokugawa rule, Japan enjoyed a long period of prosperity, rising to a local superpower (even if voluntarily ending in a bit isolated position eventually).
Lincoln - although associated with the period of Civil War, he contributed greatly to the abolishion of slavery and managed to keep the United States united (though at a cost...).
Mao - a good candidate for a replacement, tho even he did help his country by fighting the Japanese invaders during WW2 (and not fighting his foremost foe, the Kuomintang, that was the most important force fighting the Japanese) and later creating (by force) the united China as we know it nowadays.

What good did Hitler do to Germany???

He brought a total destruction to the whole country in just about ten years, ruining it both militarily and economically. You should ask some Germans how they feel about including Hitler in Civ3, I guess.

Guys, do not tell me there are good reasons to make Hitler a member of this club. There are none. Period.

P.S.: I am not that much of a history freak, I had to look several of the leaders in books... but my feeling was correct, most of them may at least controversially be attributed contributing to their nation's glory. Unlike Hitler.

N. Machiavelli · July 16, 2002, 19:18

Bismark: Fine by me. While I would, personally, enjoy seeing Hitler in the game for entertainment value only, I understand that many are offended.

Elisabeth: Would prefer Henry V or VIII.

Xerxes: Darius would have been preferable.

Alexander: Not technically Greek, but easily the most recognisible and worthy for Greek leader.

Cleopatra: Is decent enough to be included if Firaxis was particularly eager to try to balance the genders. Ramses wold be preferable.

Hammurabi: Is a fine choice. Nebuccadrezzer also good, but less recognizable.

Joan of Arc: Napoleon all the way. Heck put in Louis XIV before Joan. She was indeed a cultural and 'military' leader, but it would be like placing Montgomery or Sherman as leader of Britain or America, respectively.

Lincoln: Is, arguably, the president who got America through it's toughest time and was more a saviour to the US than even FDR. Washington is a close second, but his greatest contribution was as a general, not president.

Caesar: Personal favorite. Augustus, Hadrien, or even Publious are also excellent political leaders for Rome.

Mao: Not the most savory of fellows, but like Hitler was (controversially) the 'right' person at the right time and took his country far. Unlike Hitler, we have yet to see if where he's taking it down the toilet.

Kathy the Great: Would prefer Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great rather than Katherine. A good leader in her own right, but unlikely the best.

Jon Shafer · July 16, 2002, 19:49

Napoleon, Washington, and maybe someone different for Russia.

Everything else is fine, and what I would have done.

Jon Shafer · July 16, 2002, 19:52

Seperate thought:

I feel that Lincoln's importance is overrated. His main significance is the time when he got into office, not what he did. The Emancipation Proclamation was mainly a diplomatic and morale contribution for the war, not something heroic. There's no doubt that he was against slavery, but that wasn't what he was aiming for.

wervdon · July 16, 2002, 20:03

I personally would change:
America -> Washington or Jefferson, probally washington though
Russia -> Peter the Great
Egypt -> One of the Ramses
France -> Louis XIV

But the only one that is really incomprehensible to me like so many of you is Joan as she wasn't even a leader in the sense the others were.

The only problem with Cleopatra IMO was she wasnt leader during a time could exactly be considered Egypt's golden age

Hopefully one day (several expansion packs down the road most likely) we'll have a scripting language that will allow changing a civs leader on the fly with certain events like game year or randomly along with aspects of the civs ai to reflect the change.

Artifex · July 16, 2002, 20:46

Hitler was an IDIOT. Bismarck united germany, Hitler got his ass kicked and is in the same league as pol pot. I don't have any respect for Hitler as a leader. I think he is a Moron. He had the most brilliant military forces and generals the world had ever seen(which had nothing to do with him). Anyone with HALF a BRAIN could of won World War 2 with those German generals and that fighting force. Hitler was a great POLITICIAN. A horrible leader. His assnine decisions on invading russia and micromanaging the war and "stand and die" orders along with all his other crackpot decisions and medling insured Germanies defeat. This isn't a moral question for example I think Stalin was just as bad if not worse, but shoudl be in the game..I just think Hitler was an idiot..

Cazrina Catherine-> Peter the Great, Stalin or Lenin (close call)

Stalin was a great leader, A mean evil SOB who killed his own people but he created an Empire (All of East Europe and many Sattelite states along with Huge Soviet Union and Massive Military Force never seen since). Lenin would be a close second for the russian leader (created the Soviet Union). Peter was great also any one oif these would be useful.

France-> Naploleon Hands Down (a great general but Russia is what did him in, but he conquered all of europe). Louis XIV was a fat narcasistic slob.

USA-> I like Washington. He was also a General.

SpencerH · July 16, 2002, 21:02

I'm surprised so many are against Joanie. It might be argued that without Joan, France would have eventually become part of England.

dojoboy · July 16, 2002, 21:42

I'd change Catherine the Great and Queen Elizabeth to their younger images.

Boris Godunov · July 16, 2002, 22:27

Bismarck is indeed the epitome of a world-class statesman and is utterly perfect to represent Germany. He was brilliant, cunning and ruthless.

Hitler's choice wouldn't just be bad taste, it would be rather stupid. He brought about the destruction of Germany, not greatness. It would be like making Caligula the leader for the Romans.

I'd agree with swapping Joan for Napoleon, but that's really the only change I would make. Yeah, you'd lose a woman, but let's face it--history has been a man's world for the most part.

Lincoln was the greatest American president, so his being in the game is fine. Trip, I'd suggest you read up more on him, especially some of the new biographies that have come out lately. Revisionists like to start trashing him, but you can't discount what he did. It was NOT a case of the times making the man. Lincoln was great in his own right.

Jon Shafer · July 16, 2002, 22:59

Lincoln was a great man. I simply feel that he was not the greatest in American history. I'm not bashing him, I simply feel that Washington has had the greatest impact.

Artifex, I agree 100% with everything you said.

Palleon · July 17, 2002, 00:57

I think most of the civ leaders are ok, but I don't like the fact that many of the leaders never lead the country, and I think that should be a prerequiste. Gandhi and Joan of Arc never led their countries in a political sense, and Cleopatra led her country into occupation for a thousand and some odd years. I wouldn't mind seeing Ramses or King Tut or something thats associated a bit more with Egypts golden age, and Napoleon or Louis for France.

Edit: And while Lincoln was a good man, I don't think he was the best choice for the American leader. Washington, Jefferson or FDR would make much better leaders in my estimation.

phunny_pharmer · July 17, 2002, 01:22

Gee, I hope I don't get on your ignore or ban list, but...

Ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire? That is the first Reich. Hitler planned to build the Third Reich, and was defeated in 1945? What happened in between the first and third? Bismark.

This was pulled up by a simple web search. I can't bring up EB right now, otherwise I'd post that. However, this is from the German Embassy...

***

Otto von Bismarck, born on April 1, 1815 at Schönhausen, is considered the founder of the German Empire. For nearly three decades he shaped the fortunes of Germany, from 1862 to 1873 as prime minister of Prussia and from 1871 to 1890 as Germany’s first Chancellor. On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his death on July 30, 1898, German News remembers the great German statesman.

After reading law at the Universities of Göttingen and Berlin, Otto von Bismarck entered Prussian service and became a judicial administrator at Aachen. Bismarck gained prominence in 1851 when he was chosen to represent Prussia in the Federal diet. In 1859 he was sent as ambassador to Russia, from where he was recalled in March 1862 to become ambassador to France. However, already after 6 months in September 1862, Bismarck returned to Berlin as prime minister of Prussia when he devoted himself to the task of uniting Germany. In the war of 1866 he succeeded in defeating Austria and excluding it altogether from Germany. Also the Franco-German War (1870-71) ended with Prussian success.

This victory instigated the kingdoms of Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden and Hesse to join the North German Alliance, an alliance of Prussia and 17 northern German states created by Bismarck in 1866, which led to the declaration of the German Empire (Deutsches Reich) in 1870 and the proclamation of King William I of Prussia as German Emperor in Versailles in 1871. The imperial constitution was declared in April 1871. Bismarck was appointed imperial chancellor. The chancellor of the Reich was not responsible to parliament but to the Emperor. The Reichstag, the imperial parliament, was convened by universal, equal, direct and secret elections. Next to the Emperor, it was the second most important institution. However, its political influence was limited to the area of legislation. It exerted only a very small influence over the formation of governments and government policy. Characteristic of the Reich was the „government over the parties" and the restriction of the peoples’ representation to a position in which it was only able to express a non-binding opinion on important political questions. The system was described at the time as a „chancellor dictatorship". It was Bismarck as Imperial Chancellor who decided upon policy outlines and who proposed the appointment and dismissal of state secretaries who were in turn responsible for the administration of the ministries of the Reich.

Bismarck’s greatest achievements, however, were the administrative reforms, developing a common currency, a central bank, and a single code of commercial and civil law for Germany. Bismarck also became the first statesman in Europe to devise a comprehensive scheme of social security to counter the Social Democrats, offering workers insurance against accident, sickness and old age. In foreign affairs, he, as a master of alliances and counter-alliances, presided over the Congress of Berlin (1872) and this seemed to symbolize his paramount position as mediator between the then great powers such as Russia, Austria, France, Great Britain. An alliance with Austria-Hungary (1879) marked a new period of conservatism in Bismarck’s foreign policy.

But by 1890 his policies began to come under attack. On March 18, 1890 two years after Emperor William II’s accession, Bismarck was forced to resign. His last years were devoted to composing his memoirs.

***

My use of bold print. Care to read more? There are a number of great books about this time period where Bismark took a country and made it a first class power.

Check it out at http://www.germanembassy-india.org/news/98july/gn07.htm

Jon Shafer · July 17, 2002, 02:06

To summarize: There would be no Germany if it weren't for Bismarck. He did what very few others in all of history could have done: United dozens of fragmented states into what quickly becamse the most powerful country in the world. Firaxis made the correct choice.

Elagabalus · July 17, 2002, 03:03

What criteria should apply when selecting a National Leader?

Some here object to Hitler/Mao/Stalin because they were *evil* and murdered a lot of people including many of their own countrymen. However, how many players have not done
* pop-rushing - crifying our own countrymen to complete something fast.
* razed a city - to clear the space of foreign nationals making the room for our own ethnic guys.
* declared war on your neighbor with no or little provocation?
I certainly have, all or soem of the above in every single game I have played.

So, cut the hypocrisy and get real: The criteria for selecting a National Leader should be how much impact this person has had, or might have had, whether that person did or tried to do some of the stuff represented in Civ 3. IMNSHO, only Cleopatra and Joan of Arc are completely off - them being mere symbols rather than real leaders. Of course Montezuma and Hiawatha are a bit off too, but get in by default - ther being no "competition". In contgrast, Mao fits in just fine in Civ 3, and Hitler and Stalin might have too, but the designers chose less politically sensitive choices. The choices of Joan and Cleopatra were obviously made to cater to female customers and abide to Political Correctness values.

Palleon · July 17, 2002, 03:03

Yes. While Hitler forced Germany to be split in two, and not remilitarize for 50 years. Not to mention the fact that he was a bastard lunatic, even the Germans are ashamed to call him a leader of theres. Of course, you'll still find people who don't think the Holocaust happened, and it was all a big misunderstanding...meh. I don't get it.

VJ · July 17, 2002, 04:16

Caesar to Augustus ; Caesar was militiary leader who had the power for less than a year,
Augustus spent his whole lifetime, was more like a emperor than a warmonger,
and truly improved the Rome to rule whole mare nostrum.

Catherine should be switched, perhaps to Alexander II.
Mao should also definetly be switched, since Chinese civ should have the Sci & Ind instead of
Ind & Mil, (Germans to that), and Mao would then look stupid.

wervdon · July 17, 2002, 04:18

Quote:

Gandhi and Joan of Arc never led their countries in a political sense

The only reason I didn't vote to replace Ghandhi is cause I honestly can't think of a real indian leader

Im sorry to admit that I truelly am ignorant of eastern history

And Im equally ignorant about Iroquis/Aztec/Zulu history

I do know a decent amount about american, european, and mediteranean history though

Enough to say that Lincoln, Elizabeth, and Bismark weren't bad choices. They might not of been the best choices, but they weren't bad choices. I do think Bismark probally was the best choice though, and Elizabeth would be a close call between her and Winston Churchill, Henry VIII and Queen Victoria. And I actually do like Lincoln, I just personally like Washington and Jefferson more. FDR would be good too as he was our only 4 term president

VJ · July 17, 2002, 04:21

After checked comments of this thread...

Joan to Napoleon! Ah, forgot that one, altough IMO Napoleon wouldn't be a good choice, either.

Iskandar Reza · July 17, 2002, 04:42

Cleopatra, because her animated head is ugly as hell. And annoying.

Yes, I know that's shallow.

Anguille2 · July 17, 2002, 05:08

Gandhi...non violent person.

Joan of Arc...has never ruled the country...maybe then Louix XV? or Vercingétorix

Catherine the great...i have always been a fan of Peter the great.

Bismark...is a good choice however he should maybe be replaced by an Emperor...Charlemagne?

In general, the leaders should not be from the last century...

Anguille2 · July 17, 2002, 05:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Elagabalus
What criteria should apply when selecting a National Leader?

Some here object to Hitler/Mao/Stalin because they were *evil* and murdered a lot of people including many of their own countrymen. However, how many players have not done
* pop-rushing - crifying our own countrymen to complete something fast.
* razed a city - to clear the space of foreign nationals making the room for our own ethnic guys.
* declared war on your neighbor with no or little provocation?
I certainly have, all or soem of the above in every single game I have played.

So, cut the hypocrisy and get real: The criteria for selecting a National Leader should be how much impact this person has had, or might have had, whether that person did or tried to do some of the stuff represented in Civ 3. IMNSHO, only Cleopatra and Joan of Arc are completely off - them being mere symbols rather than real leaders. Of course Montezuma and Hiawatha are a bit off too, but get in by default - ther being no "competition". In contgrast, Mao fits in just fine in Civ 3, and Hitler and Stalin might have too, but the designers chose less politically sensitive choices. The choices of Joan and Cleopatra were obviously made to cater to female customers and abide to Political Correctness values.

i do not agree...
When you meet an other country in CIV, you should be neutral...if i was facing Hitler, my only goal would be to destroy him...i just couldn't be neutral.
(and i do play the Germans in Axis and Allies...but the idea of the game is different).

Deathwalker · July 17, 2002, 05:37

Joan od Arc should never have been the French leader. They should have picked Napoleon or one of the other Kings who did well. BUt not her she never even lead France at best she should be a great leader.
Also Catherine of Russia was not the best choice either. It should have been either Stalin or one of the others

Though I feel that you have more than one leader per Civ and you can select who you go up against at the start or leave it random

Deathwalker · July 17, 2002, 05:48

Quote:

So, cut the hypocrisy and get real: The criteria for selecting a National Leader should be how much impact this person has had, or might have had, whether that person did or tried to do some of the stuff represented in Civ 3. IMNSHO, only Cleopatra and Joan of Arc are completely off - them being mere symbols rather than real leaders. Of course Montezuma and Hiawatha are a bit off too, but get in by default - ther being no "competition". In contgrast, Mao fits in just fine in Civ 3, and Hitler and Stalin might have too, but the designers chose less politically sensitive choices. The choices of Joan and Cleopatra were obviously made to cater to female customers and abide to Political Correctness values.

Just out or curiosity, why shouldn't Cloepatra be in the game. Given that her plan would have lead to her ruling even more land than Alexander, if it worked. She fits your cirteria for a leader

Sonic · July 17, 2002, 07:35

Artifex, you said Greman army was great but Hitler wasn't. Remember it was Hitler who built that army. And it was Japan Tojo Hideki who was responsible for losing war, not Hitler. Hitler attacked Soviets but he was the winning side. His only bad move (as a leader) was alliance with Japans but who was able to thing that they would attack USA?

I totally disagree with Anguille, who protests Hitler but says nothing bad about people who suggested Stalin, who was much worse. Also, I could make alliance or be friendly with Hitler in civ3 because remember, it's just the game, not a real life. And game is about rewriting history. In it Hitler might be the best man ever been and Gandhi might be killing people for fun. My opinion on the other leaders in civ3 depends on their in-game moves, not on what they did in real life.

wervdon · July 17, 2002, 07:46

Quote:

Hitler attacked Soviets but he was the winning side. His only bad move (as a leader) was alliance with Japans but who was able to thing that they would attack USA?

I don't really want to get in a historical debate, but Id really rate both the reason Hitler and Napolean lost as attacking Russia. Sure the US helped alot with ending the war, but it was the russian campaign that ate at Germany's resources so much before then. They probally still would of lost, but it would of taken much longer.

And yes Germany (and Napolean) both "won" in Russia. The problem with that is they won by having the people burn their own villages/cities and supplies and moving further and further east dragging their armies further and further east into Russia (past their supply lines) until the winter kicked in. Its called winning the battle but losing the war.

EDIT: Just to clarify, Im not saying the US entering the war was not significant, it certainely was. Im just saying don't totally discount the Russian Campaign as another signicant reason why they lost, and that the same thing was true for Napolean. Of course, Napolean also missed up hugely in Spain by trying to overthrow the King there and replace him with a puppet relative of his when the king was already loyal to him in an effort to extend his continental system (blockade against the british) to the spanish ports more effectively.

vondrack · July 17, 2002, 08:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Sonic
Artifex, you said Greman army was great but Hitler wasn't. Remember it was Hitler who built that army. And it was Japan Tojo Hideki who was responsible for losing war, not Hitler. Hitler attacked Soviets but he was the winning side. His only bad move (as a leader) was alliance with Japans but who was able to thing that they would attack USA?

It was not Hitler who built the German army up, it was his generals - Guderian, to name at least one of them. Hitler's credit in this matter is very small. He did make the bold political decision to break the Treaty of Versailles and let his generals rebuild the army, but that's the only thing that he should be credited for.

Your view of the Japan's involvement and importance is completely distorted. It was very clear that Japan would eventually attack the US possessions in the Pacific long before they did so. And even if not, it would have been perfectly okay for Hitler to break the Axis Alliance with Japan after the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor. Instead, he declared war to the US in a futile effort to fight the whole world! Quite uselessly, as the Americans were not particularly eager to get involved in a war in Europe.

Japan's decision to attack the US instead of Russia in the Far East really helped the Russians a lot, but indirectly, as the Russian elite, best-equipped divisions could have been reassigned from the Far East to the defense of Moscow. But it can certainly not be seen as the key point making Hitler to lose... How can you claim that it was Tojo losing the war for Hitler? It just gives no sense. It was Hitler who attacked Russia and as Japan never promised to help Hitler by attacking Russia in the Far East, Hitler knew very well he would have to win on his own.

What you say about the Germans winning in Russia is also debatable. They had a grand opening, smashing through the Russian defenses like hell. The initial period of the Russian campaign was a fantastic triumph, never seen before in the military history ... but not thanks to Hitler, but thanks to the excellent German field commanders (Guderian, von Runstedt, von Manstein and others). Unfortunately, Hitler grown so self-assured of himself that he stopped listening to his best generals and decided to take over the military leadership. He diverted and split the core of the German forces heading for Moscow - sent one group to Leningrad (never forcing it to fall), another to the Caucasus, and let the rest just sit and wait... thus granting Russians the vital time to regroup. It was Hitler who sacked his best generals just because of they disagreed with his ill-thought military ideas. It was Hitler's idiotic commands to stand fast where his generals knew would have been better to withdraw that made Germans lose the Russian campaign eventually. It was primarily Hitler who made Germany lose the war (I might even dare to say that Germany might have a chance to win it without him).

I believe that your knowledge about Hitler and WW2 is far from complete (not that I would suggest mine is not). If you spend some time looking for more info on the topic, you will find out that Hitler was one of the worst military leaders Germany has ever had (effectively double-cancelling his notable political successes).

Deathwalker · July 17, 2002, 09:04

Hilter is not the best leader for the Germans the Germans have had lots of a good leader so there more choice. Persoanlly I like Bismark as the german leader.
The problem leaders are the ones that were picked because they are female. So the game can be polically correct not because they are good leaders

Sonic · July 17, 2002, 09:24

If not Hitler German might not only would not won the war, but also didn't had army. It was Hitler who rebuilt it. Hitler is maybe the most blamed man in history and this is why so much people thinks he was bad leader. I read in fact several books on WW2 (which are not a blame). To know more about Hitler (only documents, not biased opinion) you could visit www.hitler.org .

vondrack · July 17, 2002, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Sonic
If not Hitler German might not only would not won the war, but also didn't had army. It was Hitler who rebuilt it. Hitler is maybe the most blamed man in history and this is why so much people thinks he was bad leader. I read in fact several books on WW2 (which are not a blame). To know more about Hitler (only documents, not biased opinion) you could visit www.hitler.org .

Simple question: what is an attribute of a good leader?

Arguably, his results - the rise of the nation under his leadership.

Germany had no army before Hitler. Germany had no army after Hitler. He "created" it (even if I disagree with that Hitler rebuilt the German army) and then annihilated it, killing millions of Germans in the process. Is this something that qualifies him as a great leader? Nope. Looking at the website you mentioned, I noticed he was credited with founding the German highway system and designing Volkswagen Beetle. Yeah, that's cute. Is it supposed to counterweight the fact that he - because of his stubborness and immense ego - brought the total destruction to the major part of Germany by refusing to surrender when the tides changed? Nope. His positive achievements were negated hundred times by what he did wrong.

Something a bit OT: remember that he who fights your enemies, must not necessarily be good. The fact that Hitler fought Stalin (who was by all means evil, annexing the Baltic states and Poland, for example) does not mean that Hitler was good/better. Just BTW - why didn't you propose replacing Cathy with Stalin? If Hitler was great in your eyes, Stalin must have been even greater, as he defeated Hitler (or was one of those that defeated him). I am not advocating Stalin's choice, it would have been just as outraging - do not tell me how evil and bad and whatever he was, I know that. But try realizing your reasons for respecting Hitler, while trashing Stalin...

Hitler was a bad leader, because his rule was an ultimate failure, whatever his plans and efforts were. The total destruction of Germany and millions of dead Germans... this is not a biased opinion, this is a fact.

sabrewolf · July 17, 2002, 10:18

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
I changed Bismark to Hitler. Caterina to Stalin as well. Not to mention Joan of Arc to Napoleon.

same choice for me too...