The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Allied Military Generals In World War II were on Average Worse than their German Counter Parts

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 465 times Debate No: 66032
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




I recently had a debate with m friend on who was a better general Patton or Rommel with me favoring Rommel I won but I would like to challenge anyone with a background in World War II history to argue that the Allied generals were better at the tactical and strategic level. Note that this is not about civilian leaders, decisions pressured upon by civilian leaders, or which side was morally correct merely who was the better general. First round is for acceptance only.


I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


How I am going to display this is as a theater of war by theater of war bases and how the Germans showed tactical and strategic brilliance

1.Poland 1939
The Germans revolutionized Warfare with the creation of Blitzkrieg which according to Erwin Rommel is The art of concentrating strength at one point forcing a break through, rolling up to secure flanks then striking lighting quick into the enemy's rear. This allowed the Germans to force the capitulation of Poland in only 30 days and demonstrated to the world the power of Blitzkrieg warfare
2.The western front 1940 the Germans in their campaign against the British and French in France achieved nothing short of the most unexpected and decisive victory in Modern warfare to date. Germany in a mere 6 weeks. They accomplished this through the brilliant diversion accomplished by the Germans pretending to invade France through Belgium and Denmark when their really strike was coming through the Ardenes in southern Belgium. This allowed Germany to completely encircle the British French forces in Northern France and quickly cut off their lines of retreat. By doing This the allied powers were forced to realize that they had been surrounded by a fast moving and ruthlessly effective fighting force that employed the doctrine of lightning warfare to negate the enemy's advantage in number by concentrating their thrust in isolated regions to allow complete numerical superiority. The French and British in comparison still practiced the antiquated WWI tactics that required far to much preparation, was not reactive to the modern battle field, and failed to concentrated armored divisions to allow local superiority in numbers. The air forces of the Allies was also outdated the times with only which had only 68 modern fighter planes i comparison to the 520 German Bef 109's. Germany also exercised novel tactics such as the use of Dive Bombers, parachutist infantry, mechanized infantry, self propelled guns and many other modern machinery to allow complete domination of the Allied powers
2.Africa in my opinion had the second best general of world war 2 nearly defeat a force superior in every way except for leadership. This force twas the Africa Corps under Erwin Rommel who through bluffs, brilliance, and lightning warfare managed to with 1 division almost eject the allied forces from Africa. Rommel first story of success were with 2 battalions he managed to drive back 1 division of German forces with a audacious attack in Via Balbia Libya that flanked the British forces and forced them to retreat. However due to Rommel's use of dummy tanks made the British believed that Rommel was stronger than he truly was and caused the British to be routed and retreat out of Libya. Thus Rommel had routed a division with a force that was vastly inferior in ever way. When Rommel's full division finally reached Africa he used this under strength division to its fullest potential by engaging the numerically superior British with immensely powerful anti tank guns with a follow up by fast German tanks. These tactics brought Rommel all the way to Egypt were he was finally forced to retreat by the battle of El Aliemain (misspelled) were Rommel still won many victories including the battle of Kasserine Pass and near victory in holding the Devils garden against Bernard Montgomery.

In your section I encourage you to use counter examples and argue the points I have made

In my next section I will explain German tactical brilliance in the eastern front and Italy and their ability to fight defensively in the late western front

All of this information comes from the book "How Hitler Could Have Won World War II"

Best of luck in your counter arrgument


freedomisnotfree forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Seeing that my opponent has forfeited the round and that I am busy I will not go further into the topic please vote for me.


freedomisnotfree forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Adam2isback 12 months ago
Actually they were bad too

Though it's more racism than anything else.
Posted by Stran31 1 year ago
The allies almost lost ww2.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
Patton had only one strategy. We win, you lose.
Posted by sidewinder 1 year ago
Adam2isback I think you misinterpreted my debate. It is about which military were better strategically and tactically not the moral background or causes behind either the allied powers or the axis powers. However, I would disagree with the facts that you stated on Germany because it did have territories it seized in Africa, China, and the South Pacific and was even known as the German empire with its greatest ally being the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In World War II Hitler created the third Reich or the third German empire the first being the Holy Roman empire the second being Otto von Bismark German empire thus your statements on Germany never being a empire is false.On the accord that the Axis was the good guys I recommend you look up any number of atrocities committed by the Nazi regime Mussolini's regime and Tojo's military dictatorship. Although the Allies were not perfect they helped fight back totalitarian dictatorships. I also find it Ironic that out of all the allied powers you criticize you don't critique the USSR which under Stalin killed more than 20 million Soviet citizens. However, if you disagree with me I'll be happy to debate you and go into further detail on the Axis and Allied Powers
Posted by Adam2isback 1 year ago
And the racism in the Lowlands of Scotland which never ends.
Posted by Adam2isback 1 year ago
The only thing I respect about the Allies is they had strength and power and they were impressive. But that's where it ends. The racism, bigotry, hatred that countries like Denmark, Britain, the USA showed and have always showed is unacceptable. Remember the Dulith lynchings?
Posted by Adam2isback 1 year ago
I totally agree with you.
Denmark, Britain and all of those countries had heinous empires. None of which Germany even ever had. I don't even use the word "worse than." I don't use "worse than" because to me the Allies were the bad guys and the Axis were the good guys. There is no good Allies. They were imperialist racist bigots. Thieves. Denmark robbed Greenland. Britain robbed a good amount of the world. Israel does it with Palestine.

There is no "worse than" The Allies were just racist bastards altogether.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually posted an argument. Conduct for forfeiture.