The Instigator
1stLordofTheVenerability
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
tmhustler
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points

Axis Showdown: Germany would have annihilated Japan.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 9 votes the winner is...
1stLordofTheVenerability
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,078 times Debate No: 9735
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (9)

 

1stLordofTheVenerability

Pro

Good luck, have fun and keep it clean.

This is my first debate on here, so wish me luck. :D

Both of the two Axis Powers mentioned in the title are extremely powerful. Both are particularly effective on a certain terrain and climate. For example, Japan's battle fleet was one of the largest in the world, and it featured the largest battleship of the time. However, it was hampered by several factors. Its strategy was based on the fleet as its backbone and island hopping as its progressive tactics. Its military numbers were substantially smaller. There are many more decisive factors that I think decide the issue.

I daren't continue until somebody accepts - I wouldn't want to scare everybody off at this point... :D

One thing I think is integral in this debate, and, if you're willing to agree upon, is to ensure that most terrains are considered in the battle. I imagine that Japan has certain advantages in the island hopping techniques (amphibious APCs and tanks, for example), and Germany would have definite advantages in the desert, per se.
tmhustler

Con

I will be negating the resolution that Germany would have annihilated japan.
to accomplish this goal Germany would have to accomplish to victory. in which japans government , and fighting force would need to be completely crushed. I would also like to point out that japan would not even need to attack Germany to prevent being annihilated and could just continue island hop to ward of destruction. the majority of my arguments will come in the second round good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
1stLordofTheVenerability

Pro

My opponent has made a good point. Perhaps 'annihilate' was not appropriate wording for the title. 'defeat with unconditional surrender' would have been a better option.

Nevertheless, Nazism would accept nothing less than complete domination and control over Japan in the case of such a showdown. As such, if Germany did conquer, they would completely subjugate the the Japanese peoples. They demonstrated this time and again with the territories they conquered. Ukraine, Poland and the sections of Russia given due to withdraw particularly felt the effects of such cruel policiees as the Gestapo and Nazi party held.

Now, on to the issue at hand.

Firstly, the German Kriegsmarine was inferior to that of the Japanese Imperial Navy in style of numbers, but the Japanese lacked one very important tool - Radar! A lot of good the beastly huge Yamato (largest battleship in history) is going to do if it can not locate the enemy! The Japanese fleet depended upon spotters (often airplanes) for its eyes - thus, they were trying to pick out periscopes or submarines riding the waves by the eye (with the aid of telescopes etc.) The same applied with ships. This is why they were always one step behind the United States in the war. The United States had been working on radar technology (which was upgraded by English experiences) before the war, and was using it efficiently.

Likewise, Germany created its own radar systems even before WWII began. Japan had no concept of radar and didn't introduce it into its fleets until years later. Thus, this means that the smaller but more agile German ships could dodge the large battleships of the Japanese and lay mine traps and submarine ambushes for them. A similar event occurred at the Battle of the Spanish Armada, in which the English danced around the larger Spanish galleons. Obviously, the large expanse of the Pacific would only aid the Germans in their navy guerrilla tactics.

Also regarding the navy, Germany extensively used Submarines. With radar, these wolf packs were incredibly dangerous. Japanese submarines never compared.

Thus, we see that the Japanese Navy is in severe trouble without the asset of radar.

Also, the Germans had a far superior airforce. The German Luftwaffe was one of the most superior and technically advanced Air Forces in the world before the war started (matched only by the RAF, which had been slightly beleaguered between the wars).

Messerschmitt Bf 109 is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest fighter planes of the war, is it not? It was a supreme fighter. The Japanese Zero could never have hoped to match it.

Japan was outclassed in machinery. It did not even develop a decent Main Battle tank before 1944, while Germany's Tiger I and II Tanks tore down much of anything in its path. The Panzers were also incredible.

"How does a Churchill kill a Panther?"
"You get within 400 meters and bounce a shot off the ground and into the underbelly."
"Has anyone ever done it?"
"Yes, Davis in C Troop. He's now in the rear trying to recover his nerve."
"How does a Churchill kill a Tiger?"
"You get within 200 meters and fire a shot through the gunner's periscope."
"Has anyone ever done it?"
"No."
~ This is a paraphrase from the book 'Operation Overlord' by Max Hastings. It is a conversation between a General and a Lieutenant Colonel on the practicality of the Churchill tank, which was rather powerful. Yet, you can see how much more powerful the German tanks are.

The Bushido attitude and brutal training of the Japanese led to such degrees as kamikazes and suicidal charges. But yet, did these things actually accomplish anything? These soldiers were dead. They couldn't be used another day or battle. the Germans, for the most part, were more inclined to retreat and save their soldiers. Soldiers of which they outnumbered the Japanese with.

~ The only citation I need to make thus far is that regarding Max Hasting's account of Operation Overlord. I thoroughly enjoyed that book and urge you to read it. I paraphrased the above discussion from it, as i no longer have the book on hand.
tmhustler

Con

To begin this round I will be refuting my opponents points, then I will clearly demonstrate that Germany in no way could have annihilated Japan.
first radar I am unsure of pro's source for Japan not having radar but hear are mine that they did have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

my opponents point about the German subs is certainly valid but subs don't hold enough troops for a full scale invasion of any of the Japanese island.
pro goes on to say that the German air-force was far superior but this point is useless because the German bf 109 only had a range of 621 miles. Also nether Germany or Italy had any aircraft carriers during ww2. So if you can't get the plains to the battle they are useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

now to my arguments

first Germany had no way to get there aircraft to the Japanese islands, there range was to short and they had no aircraft carriers. Second Germany had no way to get troops, or tanks to the islands because they had no transport vessels, or landing crafts. So in conclusion if Germany can't get there air craft or there personnel to the Japanese islands they can in now way annihilate or even defeat.
Debate Round No. 2
1stLordofTheVenerability

Pro

My apologies about debating in the comments and thus interfering with your potential arguments.

My source is the book 'Military Errors of World War II'. Good book, I encourage all of you to read it.

Agreed, Japan did eventually obtain radar during WWII, which I previously made it sound did not occur. However, in all of the dates that the Wikipedia articles list, not one date is before the year 1942. This is two entire years into the war, and the specifications on these radar systems are vastly primitive. The more sophisticated radar systems were not created until 1944 and 1945. The Japanese also built upon technology offered by the Germans and captured from the United States. If they did not have these two sources, they would not have notably progressed in radar technology.

One other factor which is very importance is the use of intelligence forces. Both the Soviets and Germans had intelligence agents present in Japan (Germany to ensure that its ally never changed its allegiance). However, the Japanese would find it absolutely impossible to infiltrate the Germans with spies of Japanese blood. Asiatic features are highly distinct and definitely not aligned with the Aryan features Hitler was so proud of. Thus, the Germans could know many strategical moves that the Japanese make while the Japanese would still be unaware of German movements. Saboteurs and all of that are a part of the intelligence campaign.

It is true that the Kriegsmarine possessed no aircraft carriers, but they were working on two when they decided that the effort was fruitless because the Allies had already expressed dominance in the Atlantic. If they were fighting Japan, they wouldn't have initially given up on those two.

The German war machine had a far more productive industry. It easily produced airplanes, tanks, artillery, ships etc. With its extensive empire, including the resource rich country of Ukraine, its industrial machine could have extended its production for a more powerful range engine and various other amphibious features needed to destroy the Japanese. Japan, on the other hand, could not so easily adapt its industry to produce stronger and more powerful tanks, longer range howitzers, better rifles, mines and machine guns etc. The Japanese Air Force largely lacked the use of submarines against a merchant marine, and it most definitely did not adapt to the role of protecting its merchant fleet and supply lines.

In like manner, the Japanese had little way of creating an invasion of the Germans. If their aircraft carriers did come about to German territories, they would be blown out of the water as had been the HMS Ark Royal. Once the Japanese invasion fleet had been repelled - rather easily - the Germans would have a clear way to create bases in areas like Burma.

The Japanese could not have mounted any invasion by land, as they had no power or colonies. They had no idea of how to fight in the desert. They had no skills to fight among European hedges and flat, rolling terrain. They only knew tropical islands and strategic hopping techniques. With so much overextension of their newly gained territories, and an entire ocean to cover, the Germans would easily be able to adapt, just as the US had to do.

One last thing I may mention. The United States fought a war on two fronts. Not even half of its army was dedicated to the fighting of the Japanese until 1944/45. Yet, the Japanese were defeated. However, Germany could only be repelled by immense forces of marauding allies. The Eastern Front caused Germany hundreds of thousands of casualties, but they managed to inflict even more upon the Russians. Then, the Germans had to use a portion of their armies to fight off join efforts in Italy and France. And Africa. Japan would have caved much much sooner under this pressure. This just demonstrates the might the Germans possess over that of the Japanese.
tmhustler

Con

I would like to thank my opponent of this interesting debate.
I would like to point out that my opponent has been misleading the voters yet again. Because in fact the Japanese had all the technology for radar before the capture of a British radar system in Singapore, but there government deemed it to be of no significant advantage so chose not to fund its project

pro goes on to say that if Germany were to fight Japan they would have developed better weapons. Not only is this purely speculative, but also if Germany had the ability to build better weapons why did they not. Lastly Germany could not have annihilated the Japanese like the U.S. Did because they did not have a nuclear weapon. The rest of his argument has nothing to do with the resolution so therefore will not be rebutted.

I would like to point out again if you can't get your plains, tanks, or personnel to the battlefield you can not annihilate the opposition.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Miles_Finch 7 years ago
Miles_Finch
The problem with this kind of debating is that there are so many factors involed. So many that it would be hard to determine who would win. if this is based on ww2 and if Germany succued in invading Russia, than we would have to assume that Great Britain was not invaded and germany is getting bombed from great britian, if Germany and Japan are fighting each other then Usa is going to attack Germany with most of its forces making germany defend against it. Even if germany had a lot of rescouces if they don't have manpower than it doesn't make a difference what they have. Here is what I think Germany *MAY* beat Japan. Japan may get likely like they with the "divine wind" that saved them.

Who did you agree with before the debate? tied. Even though I stated things for Japan I'm not for con, I didn't want it to seem so cut and dry like pro was trying to make it out to be, pro did bring up some good points.

Who did you agree with after the debate? Con did(but not by much). what made my vote for con was because he explain that if they get get their men over there then they can't win, true. But Pros talk about the navy also convinced me. I'm going to side with con but only just.

Who had better conduct?tied no one did.

Who had better spelling and grammar?tied minor, I couldn't tell any mistakes.

Who made more convincing arguments? Con(like I said not by much). This was tough I had to look over it and think about it. I understand before of them, and they both had good points, but con just got my vote.

Who used the most reliable sources?pro. Wiki I don't consider that reliable, but that was small, radar or no radar is important but Japan would have come up with it like they did.
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
The reason I wrote they were irrelevant was because they dealt with a Japanese offensive force attacking Germany, but the resolution did not necessitate a Japanese offensive just the ability to prevent being annihilated. Than you for the RFD anyway
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - Tie

Spelling/Grammar - Pro - Con had more noticeable misspellings and often failed to capitalize words.

Argument - Pro - Pro offered many reasons for his that were completely unanswered. Con's assertion that those contentions were "irrelevant" was not a sufficient response. Con must show why they're irrelevant. In short, I felt Con dismissed too much of his opponent's case, thereby making Pro the better arguer in this debate.

Sources - Con - Pro did paraphrase one book, but it would have helped his case more to site material the readers could review. While Con's sources were few, he nevertheless deserves credit for making an effort to substantiate his case.
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
three 7 votes for pro love it. RFD's anyone
also tboone the German nuclear bomb is irrelevant because the debate takes place in the ww2 time frame, and Germany had no nuclear bomb. what if Japan perfected the death ray? has the same kind of relevance to this debate
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
I too think that in a Germany vs Japan scenario, Germany would win, but...it's not so black and white. So much depends on this "imaginary" scenario; given certain criterion, it can easily go the other way. Technologically, the Germans were superior to the Japanese in almost all respects. The Japs were a bit more suicidal and perhaps not surrender...but I also think that the Krauts (unchallenged by the allies) would have come with "the-bomb" and that would have been the end of Japan.

1stLordofTheVenerability,
I want to clarify your erroneous depiction of the Spanish Armada (a real navy) vs the English (a bunch of Pirates).

1) only a few ships actually fought (maybe less than 20.) 2) At most 5 or 6 ships were sunk (approx. equal losses) due to actual combat. 3) Most of the Spanish loses were due to terrible storms. Had they actually confronted each other you might be typing in Spanish instead of English. Less than a year after the defeat of the Armada, Spain had again the most powerful navy in the world and continued to do so for almost 100 more years.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Pshh. Refer to my Analysis.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Oh, I thought we had another round to go. I had a lot more to say on the matter. :D

And I don't know why the con keeps sticking to the belief that the japanese possessed radar in the Navy before 1942. They clearly did not. And how 'Military Errors of WWII' and 'Operation Overlord' are worse sources than Wikipedia 9which can be modified by anybody), I have no idea...
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
If Germany wanted to annihilate Japan during WWII, they would definitely not be successful in that. Japan had more military equipment that was useful when battling on islands and defending coastal sides.
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
RFD
c=tie leaning con for pro's misinformation
s&g=tie
arg=con clearly showed that Germany could not annihilate japan
s= con was the only one who gave a reliable source
Posted by Miles_Finch 7 years ago
Miles_Finch
Sorry, it is just history in general. I like to talk about it. I'll wait until it is over then.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Miles_Finch 7 years ago
Miles_Finch
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by simbaguy2 7 years ago
simbaguy2
1stLordofTheVenerabilitytmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70