• 107 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for boneapart
#51 Edited by Boneapart (854 posts) - - Show Bio
@DocJude:
did you know stalin was shorter and he had a soft voice? (well a hell of alot softer than hitlers, or churchil for that matter) 
Avatar image for docjude
#52 Edited by DocJude (400 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes, I know a bit about Uncle Joe. He also walked softly...
Have you seen his big stick?

Avatar image for blackadam
#53 Posted by blackadam (2270 posts) - - Show Bio
@Therv said:
" @RiseofApocalypse said:
" @czarny_samael said:
" @Therv said:
" Hitler on Both a fist fight and in war. "
He already losed to Stalin in second."
Hitler lost to the climate is more like it. Much like Napoleon. "
Yeah, Hitler lost less to Stalin because of his Military prowess, and more to Russia being impossible to invade it was a stupid decision and he paid for it in full. "

the weather did play a big part,but hitler could not stop russia's army from invading germany.
Avatar image for joeybagad0nutz
#54 Edited by Joeybagad0nutz (1416 posts) - - Show Bio

Stalin is much more brutal then Hilter. If this is another Germany vs Russia thing, Stalin wouldn't think twice about sending men who only have their bare fist into the fight. And with the Russian population being so big, they can continue the fight for much longer then Hitler.
Avatar image for joeybagad0nutz
#55 Posted by Joeybagad0nutz (1416 posts) - - Show Bio
@RiseofApocalypse said:
"@czarny_samael said:
" @Therv said:
" Hitler on Both a fist fight and in war. "
He already losed to Stalin in second."
Hitler lost to the climate is more like it. Much like Napoleon. "

Actually no. It is widely believed that Napoleon lost the war due to winter. But, actually Winter didn't hit until after Napoleon began his retreat from Russia. The lost was due to disease, desertions, supply lost, and a bunch of minor conflicts that killed thousands of his men.
Avatar image for blackadam
#56 Posted by blackadam (2270 posts) - - Show Bio
@Edamame said:
" @RiseofApocalypse said:
" @czarny_samael said:
" @Therv said:
" Hitler on Both a fist fight and in war. "
He already losed to Stalin in second."
Hitler lost to the climate is more like it. Much like Napoleon. "
Not only because of the cold weather, but also because the Soviet army was beginning to overwhelm the German army with sheer numbers. It is also important to note that it wasn't just the Germans who participated in "Operation Barbarrossa", and that the failed Italian invasion of Greece made the Germans invade Russia later than they expected. The German invasion began on June 22nd, 1941, while the Germans planned to invade the Soviet Union in March of that year. If the Germans took over Stalingrad, (known today as Volgograd), then the German war against the Soviets would have lasted much longer. Not to mention if the Japanese began to attack the Soviets in Siberia.  "
Avatar image for boneapart
#58 Posted by Boneapart (854 posts) - - Show Bio

anyone know how the russians beat the germans at stalingrad? they were expecting them (they never told ANYONE this) but they got loads of information from a spy they had in japan who also told them about a part of the german army moving to the oilfields (stalingrad was just a distration), so all they had to do was wait for the right moment. thats a little unknown fact
Avatar image for boneapart
#59 Posted by Boneapart (854 posts) - - Show Bio
@Edamame:
the point is they had more equitment, they had more men, they were more adaptive and they destroyed a higher persetage of the german army
Avatar image for ferro_vida
#60 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio

Stalin had some pretty bad anger issues, so if it came down to a straight forward fight with no weapons I would definitely back him. Hitler was a military man at one point, if they were to fight with weapons I would give him the edge. If this came down to who could raise an army faster and maintain the support of said troops, it would definitely be Hitler. He was one charismatic SoB. 
@napoleon
said:

" @Edamame: the point is they had more equitment, they had more men, they were more adaptive and they destroyed a higher persetage of the german army "
They also had the home field advantage.
Avatar image for smokeymcganja
#61 Posted by smokeymcganja (43 posts) - - Show Bio
    
 Hitler wins 
Avatar image for ferro_vida
#63 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio
@Edamame: Yeah, but Stalin had a size advantage.
Avatar image for thegreatfour
#64 Posted by thegreatfour (12977 posts) - - Show Bio

Hitler wins. People have tried to kill him forty something times and failed.

Avatar image for ferro_vida
#66 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio
@Edamame: lol I was referring to Stalin personally. He's a bigger man than Hitler is, which leads me to think he would have an edge in one on one, unarmed combat.
Avatar image for telcalipoca
#68 Posted by Telcalipoca (1002 posts) - - Show Bio
@DocJude said:
" Yes, I know a bit about Uncle Joe. He also walked softly... Have you seen his big stick? "
*gasp* 
dirty
Avatar image for daydream
#69 Posted by Daydream (2902 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for ferro_vida
#70 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio
@Edamame: Stalin's 'stache has more volume to it :P He will consume all opponents.
Avatar image for thegreatfour
#71 Posted by thegreatfour (12977 posts) - - Show Bio

What about Franz?

 Don't you F-ing dare!
 Don't you F-ing dare!
Avatar image for docjude
#75 Posted by DocJude (400 posts) - - Show Bio
@Ferro Vida said:
" @Edamame: Stalin's 'stache has more volume to it :P He will consume all opponents. "
That & after being soaked in good Russian Vodka for so long it's hardened to razor sharpness.
Avatar image for docjude
#76 Posted by DocJude (400 posts) - - Show Bio
@Prince CortSether said:

" @Ferro Vida said:

" @Edamame: lol I was referring to Stalin personally. He's a bigger man than Hitler is, which leads me to think he would have an edge in one on one, unarmed combat. "
Hitler was taller than Stalin by almost 4 inches. Unless by bigger you mean fatter, which isn't an advantage, especially since Hitler had military training experience and was quite healthy for the majority of his life. "
Hitler was a regimental runner (basically ran messages around). It was dangerous of course but it didn't equip him for much else but dodging gunfire and running away from trouble.
Avatar image for prince_cortsether
#78 Posted by Prince CortSether (2375 posts) - - Show Bio
@napoleon: 
Nazi's would have stomped had all their forces been directed only at Russia and they weren't occupied on a western front and Africa as well.They were at Moscow's door even with valuable resources being pulled west in defense of Germany.  The Nazis would have crushed Soviet Russia. Say Germany waits until 43 or early 44 to open up hostilities, and up until this time acts as an ally to Stalin. Stalin would have seen no need to Build up his military during this time, and still would have been caught off guard just like in 41. Only this time Germany has all of her Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Wheremacht, and SS Divisions to focus on Russia. Waiting until 43 or 44 means that russian winter would not have been such a huge factor.Technology for Germany would far surpass anything that the Russian would have.Germany started WWII in 1939, but had Germany had 4 more years of "peace", the V-2 Programs would have been far beyond what they were historically at, Germany would have a very large Jet Aircraft Fleet, and the German Z plan would be nearly complete.

   
Avatar image for docjude
#80 Posted by DocJude (400 posts) - - Show Bio
@Prince CortSether said:
" @napoleon: Nazi's would have stomped had all their forces been directed only at Russia and they weren't occupied on a western front and Africa as well.They were at Moscow's door even with valuable resources being pulled west in defense of Germany.  The Nazis would have crushed Soviet Russia. Say Germany waits until 43 or early 44 to open up hostilities, and up until this time acts as an ally to Stalin. Stalin would have seen no need to Build up his military during this time, and still would have been caught off guard just like in 41. Only this time Germany has all of her Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Wheremacht, and SS Divisions to focus on Russia. Waiting until 43 or 44 means that russian winter would not have been such a huge factor.Technology for Germany would far surpass anything that the Russian would have.Germany started WWII in 1939, but had Germany had 4 more years of "peace", the V-2 Programs would have been far beyond what they were historically at, Germany would have a very large Jet Aircraft Fleet, and the German Z plan would be nearly complete.    "
& yet they botched all that...
Avatar image for systemid
#83 Posted by SystemID (448 posts) - - Show Bio

Stalin.
 
Because of this game.
 
  

  
 
But then of course, Kain kills Stalin as we all know...
 
  
What a devious b@stard!!!   D=
Avatar image for docjude
#84 Posted by DocJude (400 posts) - - Show Bio

So? Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades as my ol' pappy used to say.

Avatar image for steverodgers
#85 Posted by SteveRodgers (770 posts) - - Show Bio

hitler because stalin would get to greedy and corrupted. plus hitler hates commies.
Avatar image for docjude
#87 Posted by DocJude (400 posts) - - Show Bio

so you're seriously going to get hot&bothered about your thread drift? Get serious, Nazi Germany was a flash in the pan of Europe & a little in Africa, while Soviet Russia was a global monster. 
Why don't you go start another thread?

Avatar image for ferro_vida
#89 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio
@SteveRodgers said:
" hitler because stalin would get to greedy and corrupted. plus hitler hates commies. "
Communism and the Nazi ideals were fundamentally different. It makes sense for them to hate each other. 
 
Or should I assume that you're trying to make a funny?
Avatar image for ferro_vida
#91 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio
@Edamame said:
" @Ferro Vida said:
" @SteveRodgers said:
" hitler because stalin would get to greedy and corrupted. plus hitler hates commies. "
Communism and the Nazi ideals were fundamentally different. It makes sense for them to hate each other.  Or should I assume that you're trying to make a funny? "
Yes and no. National Socialism (Nazism) and Socialism.  Notice the similar root base. "
Nazism has nothing to do with National Socialism. They chose that as the name for their party using the logic that when people hear "socialism" they think "good for the common man".
Avatar image for deadcool
#93 Posted by Deadcool (6943 posts) - - Show Bio

No Caption Provided


No Caption Provided
Avatar image for ferro_vida
#94 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio
@Edamame said:
" @Ferro Vida said:
" @Nazism has nothing to do with National Socialism. They chose that as the name for their party using the logic that when people hear "socialism" they think "good for the common man". "
I guess.  "
I might be majoring in History. lol.
Avatar image for ferro_vida
#96 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio
@Edamame: Maybe at some point. Although writer or even lawyer are more likely at the moment.
Avatar image for ferro_vida
#98 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio
@Edamame: I'm more interested in helping people. Matt Murdock is an inspiration for me xD 
 
Yeah, that's all you need here too. Although you can major in Writing here. I'm just in my first year, though, so I haven't selected my major.
Avatar image for ferro_vida
#100 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio
@Edamame: I'm trying psych this year, but so far the teacher has been lacking and it's making me thoroughly dislike the subject (D@MN APA FORMAT!!!!) 
 
What can I say, I've got a flair for the written word.