TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Stalin or Hitler

Stalin or Hitler

ok lets go back to history way back. The US does not exist rather the countries who own this land are France, Gb, spain, and Russia. Ok? there is no US of A.

So Hitler comes to power and conquers france and he moves on to Russia. There a Titan clash occurs and if the outcome couldhave been different which Totalitarian would you prefer?

I would say Stalin that guy was the biggest badass of the 20th century.

Hitler, no doubt. Hitler was more of a physcopath then Stalin. Stalin wasnt all about going on and conquring the world..Hitler was..and he did it. I think if the U.S didnt exist..Hitler conqured the world.

Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler. And Stalin did want to conquer the rest of the world. I am sure that if the US did not stay in Europe Russia would have gone on and invade the rest of the European continent.

Hitler couldv'e won except he didn't listen to anyone but himself.

Maybe, in some ways your right..but again Stalin didnt listen to anyone but himself.

But looking from what could of happend..I would say that Hiter was close to conquring the world, because he allready started, then again, one way or another he will of collapsed. Now Stalin had a different approach, he didnt conqure alot of nations, but he made alot of nations like him...such as Eastern European countries turning into Communism..

But..fuck them both, both of them were scumbags and the world is better without them.

The thing about Stalin is that he really was going to conquer the world using his special police to overthrow govs and install friendly govs to him. Thats why if Hitler never existed Stalin would have for sure conquered most of the world and we would be in a worse position now than the way it happened.

wtf

^^Would you care to elaborate?

Pertaining to the WWII discussion, I think that if the US had not participated in the second world war and that D-Day had never taken place, the Russians would've still defeated the Germans. By the time the Allies had landed in Normandy, the Russians had the Germans already running back to Germany. Sure the landing helped accelerate the Nazi defeat, but I think what D-Day really accomplished was to make sure the Red Army didn't keep going after they had taken Germany.

As for whose society I would rather live in, well that's a tough question. If I was born into it, I would prefer the Soviet Union because they had a good hockey team.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus wtf

My thoughts exactly. What kind of a topic is this?

There was a thread like this about a year & a half ago in the polls area i think. But i gotta say Stalin. Since during his reign he killed 4-5 times more people.

without help of US Army to Allies, Hitler could engage all his forces on Eastern Front, defeat Soviet Union and conquer main part of World. Perhaps it could be lesser bad than hegemony of communism ..

i think hitler had better tacticians

quote:

Originally posted by stren i think hitler had better tacticians

True, his generals were quite topnotch and better than most. However, he rarely listened to them and by the end of the war many had turned against him.

I think the winner of WWII without the USA would depend on one thing and one thing alone: Would Russia still have been able to research and mass produce the T-34? That tank was PWNAGE.

Other important factors would include:
1) How long could Britian hold out without US support?
2) If it could hold out for a long time, how long would Hitler waste time trying to conquer it?
3) What would Hitler order Rommel to do once he conquered Africa?

If Hitler decided to push against Russia, before the T-34 was in wide spread use, with all of his military power; then who knows who would have won. If he wasted his time with Britian and consolidating Northern Africa allowing Russia to get the T-34 out and about; then Russia would most likely still have won the war.

This is all assuming Japan didn't decide to help out and invade Russia from the East.

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ Other important factors would include:

Oh shit important factors now I am shivering in me pants. Lets see what you have to say...

quote:

1) How long could Britian hold out without US support?

Not too long seeing to how the Royal Air Force was stressed out from the Luftwaffe constant attack on their air fields. But than they had a break when stupid hitler decided to do the blitz bombing all of GB cities rather than radar stations and air fields. Had he kept attacking the air force eventually the British would have been without an air force.

quote:

2) If it could hold out for a long time, how long would Hitler waste time trying to conquer it?

Hitler had little patience and he really wanted a war with Russia, stupid him.

quote:

3) What would Hitler order Rommel to do once he conquered Africa?

Yea, you don't know? Rommel conquers NORTH AFRICA and than he goes through the MIDDLE EAST where he will attack RUSSIA from the Caucasus. Than Russia wouldv'e been fucked, like oh shit here comes the Fucking Rommel himself.

quote:

If Hitler decided to push against Russia, before the T-34 was in wide spread use, with all of his military power; then who knows who would have won. If he wasted his time with Britian and consolidating Northern Africa allowing Russia to get the T-34 out and about; then Russia would most likely still have won the war.

Well, have you ever heard of a little tank called the tiger tank, or King tiger or Panther? Those tanks could easily take on the T-34 and German panzars improvised because they couldn't take out the T-34s armor. They would fire at the T-34s artillery(I forgot what the name was called). But the point is that when a country of 50mil attacks a country of 180 mil who in the long run will win?

quote:

This is all assuming Japan didn't decide to help out and invade Russia from the East.

Before the Eastern Front began; JApan and Russia fought in Mongolia. Japenese suffered a humiliating lose and vowed to never attack Russia again.

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ Other important factors would include: 1) How long could Britian hold out without US support?

lets not foget that this imaginary scenario implies that Britain has colonies in america. That would give them a lot of resources to hold off the germans.

Re: Stalin or Hitler

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid ok lets go back to history way back. The US does not exist rather the countries who own this land are France, Gb, spain, and Russia. Ok? there is no US of A. So Hitler comes to power and conquers france and he moves on to Russia. There a Titan clash occurs and if the outcome couldhave been different which Totalitarian would you prefer? I would say Stalin that guy was the biggest badass of the 20th century.

First off your premis illustraites a total lack of knowledge with regard to the origins of the cold war. The splitting of Europe into western capitalist nations and eastern communist nations had nothing to do with the US. It was an agreement between Stalin and Churchill. Seriously, they actually sat at a table and listed the countries each of them would hold infulance over. When they were finished they told FDR what they had done and he simply agreed to it. Stalin had no intentions of trying to conqure further ground in Europe as he was satisfied with the agreement. Really, everything was fine at that point. Unfortunately, FDR didn't bother to tell Truman about this agreement because he didn't trust him. This resulted in Truman being blindsided by the post war splitting of Europe.... something to which he did not take well, eventually leading to the policy of containment.

Now with regard to an epic battle between the Soviet Union and Germany without the existance of the US..... I say it would have been no different an outcome then what it was with the US. Try to bear in mind that the Soviets fended off Barbarossa with little help from the US (who at that time was not involved in the war beyond selling weapons). The key US contribution to the Eastern front was the sale of weapons and supplies. If the US had not existed and instead were controled by the other Allied nations this would not have changed negatively, rather the change would have likely been positive.

If GB, France and the USSR controled the US it is likely that the industrial capacity and population of the US would not have been significantly different. One would expect that if this were the case the Soviet Union would have been supplied with the same quantity of supplies and weaponry from GB, France and their North American territories as they actually were from the US. Moreover, one would expect they would have received more weaponry and supplies as all three of these nations were already in the war and would therefore have supplied the necessary goods at a greater quantity (as their economy would have been in full war mode) and without profit to the manufacturers. If these assumptions are correct then there would have been no negative impact on the outcome of the war.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus wtf

+1 .......

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You guys should really do some reading.

If you mean which one was the biggest badass I would say Stalin. That guy didn't trust anyone! If he had the the feelin someone could betray him he just killed him and connections That guy was insane... He also knew how he could make country's in his power. Look at East-europe in the cold war!
Hitler though was imo a better military strategic.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Nickazz If you mean which one was the biggest badass I would say Stalin. That guy didn't trust anyone! If he had the the feelin someone could betray him he just killed him and connections That guy was insane... He also knew how he could make country's in his power. Look at East-europe in the cold war! Hitler though was imo a better military strategic.

During speeches, everyone would be so afraid to stop clapping for stalin, they eventually installed a bell that rung after like, a minute of clapping, to tell everyone to stop.

Hitler and stalin were both pricks. Putin is a prick too.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Hitler and stalin were both pricks. Putin is a prick too.

you learn well

Stalin and the Soviets would've won anyway

The weather is always on their side and the atomic bomb will
still be our idea 'cause Einstein is in... dare i say it... America.

on the other hand

quote:

Hitler and stalin were both pricks. Putin is a prick too.

I would have to agree

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan Maybe, in some ways your right..but again Stalin didnt listen to anyone but himself.

and hitler did? so it was his military minds that suggested he send troops into russia in winter? lol

Hitler: wanted to kill all the jews and other people who didnt fit his "perfect race"
Stalin: was a nutcase himself but killed his own people.

If I remember Stalin did kill more people but Hitler did the worst because he played someone else for his countries problem.

If the USA did not exist, WWII would not have occurred, since WWI may not have occurred (or the situation would have ended differently, with Germany being less impoverished or split up and conquered).

Also, many of the technological advancements that made these wars possible would have lagged behind several decades most likely, since the US and its melting pot of immigrants created fertile opportunity for new ideas and businesses and technologies to form and prosper, even more so than England during the industrial revolution.

To answer your question, I go with Hitler. Seems like the lesser of two evils.

Shibby is right: If the US didn't exist, this would change so many variables that WWII might not have even happened. At least, not in the way we know it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.