The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Germany Could Have Won World War II

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
minecraftfordayz123 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 682 times Debate No: 93559
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




My question is if the Third Reich could have, actually, won World War II.
My answer is, obviously, yes.

In fact, Germany went really close to victory during the early stages of the war.
Operation Barbarossa's start is a perfect example: the western front was secured, since France became the puppet state of Vichy France under the command of Philippe Pétain (An Hitler's sympathizer) and Britain was too weak to organize an offensive against Nazi Germany by itself. If it was not for Hitler's stubborness he wouldn't have lost as many troops as he did in a pincer movement by the regrouped and reorganized Red Army. If he actually cared about his generals's tips, he would have conquered Russia. And if he didn't ally with Japan, USA would have never entered the war.
And he lost, even if he managed to create a powerful and feared army. Which means a lot, considering the really heavy limitations Germany had because of the Treaty of Versailles.

I'll cite Wikipedia here, for only one of its many facets.

"Germany was to demobilize sufficient soldiers by 31 March 1920 to leave an army of no more than 100,000 men in a maximum of seven infantry and three cavalry divisions. The treaty laid down the organisation of the divisions and support units, and the General Staff was to be dissolved."

He made terrible decisions all by himself, and his pride ruined it all.



The U.S would easily defeat Germany by dropping another atomic bomb because they had the technology first.

The U.S. were far more advanced in developing nuclear weapons compared to Germany's atomic bomb, which their weapon blew up their lab and lost all their material. It would take a lot of time to gain all of it back.

The U.S already surrounded Germany with many forces and their F"rher committed suicide right before he was captured. Without a ruler, Germany will fall. Hitler was the one in power, and he was the one that did all the bad deeds to the country.
Germany was running out of resources since their Axis Allies were falling. Japan was struck by 2 atom bombs, and the Soviet Union was investing their oil in the beginning of the space race. Germany was on it's own, and there was nothing they could do.

All of Germany's troops were losing, and many of them died, while the center of the city was left open to attack and eventually, for US to conquer.
Debate Round No. 1


  1. To drop another atomic bomb would have meant serious military, economic, artistic and cultural damage to USA's allies and neutral countries as well, long after the war. Germany is right in the middle of Europe, so one single atomic bomb would have caused ENORMOUS damage. The aftermath would have been apocalyptic.
Germany started its project earlier than USA's. I think this quote from Wikipedia will, hopefully, solve your doubts.
  • "The German nuclear weapon project (German: Uranprojekt; informally known as the Uranverein; English: Uranium Society or Uranium Club), was a clandestine scientific effort led by Germany to develop and produce nuclear weapons during World War II. This program started in April 1939, just months after the discovery of nuclear fission in December 1938, but ended only months later due to the German invasion of Poland, after many notable physicists were drafted into the Wehrmacht."
And I'll quote a few extra parts, as well:
  • "Even with all four of these conditions in place the Manhattan Project succeeded only after the war in Europe had been brought to a conclusion. For the Manhattan Project, the second condition was met on 9 October 1941 or shortly thereafter. Germany fell short of what was required to make an atomic bomb. Mutual distrust existed between the German government and some scientists."
  • "As to condition four, the high priority allocated to the Manhattan Project allowed for the recruitment and concentration of capable scientists on the project. In Germany, on the other hand, a great many young scientists and technicians who would have been of great use to such a project were conscripted into the German armed forces, while others had fled the country before the war due to antisemitism and political persecution.

This, obviously, proves my point: Germany could have won and developed the atomic bomb first, if it wasn't for its terrible decisions.

I'll reply to your other points as well: even if the Third Reich survived the war (and Hitler didn't kill himself), at the time of his death the Reich would have surely done like the Roman Empire during the Thirty Tyrants: the most notorious commanders and officials would have fought until death in an epic standout for glory...and eventually managed to stay in command, crushing its pretenders.
The Space Race began 10 years later, in 1955: long after the Third Reich ceased to exist. No nation would seriously think about space, when it has a mighty enemy like Nazi Germany (which managed to take on the entire world and survive for years with a incompetent dictator) at its doorstep.

Also, Japan was struck down AFTER Germany's catastrophic demise.

  • And this deserves a particular mention: "All of Germany's troops were losing, and many of them died, while the center of the city was left open to attack and eventually, for US to conquer."
Germany was alone. Fascist Italy ceased to exist before Germany and Japan, and Japan never had an active role on the war on the European scenario. The Allied were too far to conquer Berlin...except for the URSS, which managed to get there first.

You know the rest.


The aftermath would have been apocalyptic, the Pro debated. However, I disagree since

1) Germany's main base of the attack was in the dead center of Germany. If the atom bomb had been dropped on that location, the results would, ultimately, kill most civilians in the center of Germany, but also the troops and Hitler. The radiation could be sure to hit the other troops that were around the area, ultimately leading to Germany's downfall and surrender.

2) The Soviet Union wasn't happy with the German's, either. They were attacking from the east while the U.S. was attacking from the west. We could have told the soviets to evacuate the area before the bomb was dropped, and then they would be thankful to us for shortening the war and not getting them killed on purpose.

If Oppenheimer actually dropped another atom bomb on Germany, since the U.S. had the technology and resources to do so, Most of Germany's troops would die, leaving Hitler exposed. The Americans would have invaded his house/base, and he would have committed suicide again, playing the roles of how the second world war ended.

Germany could not have won at the beginning, either. They were winning, sure, against France and other surrounding countries. That was because they didn't have the resources and the technology. However, that changed as when the U.S. entered the war, they had a whole new battle strategy. First they sent a batch of troops to the D-day area, but that did not turn out so well for the American soldiers, but it acted as a distraction for Germany and Japan to send their troops so that the U.S. could bomb Japan.

P.S. This is not trying to offend the people of Germany. If you are German, don't take this personally, please.
Debate Round No. 2


I see your points, and I don't agree with those. I think "Germany's main base of the attack" stands for its HQ.

Germany actually had many of them, but you're talking like Hitler had only one; and I started the debate starting with Operation Barbarossa, so I'll write down here the only bunker that has been used as HQ and created during that period: "Werwolf", in Ukraine. Used between 1942 and 1943, only 3 times.

But, unfortunately, that is not the true problem here. The problem is the atomic bomb's radius, which would have had effects on EVERYTHING, not just the people inside of it, but also the terrain, for example. Or the houses, on the monuments, on the buildings. And it would have not hit only the center of Germany, but also the other parts of Europe as well, even if not in a direct way. For example, Edible food caught by the bomb's radiations could have been possibly eaten by someone not directly caught by the bomb itself...and you surely know how bad can be something radioactive in your body for hours. And these are merely few reasons to explain why we don't use the atomic bomb today.

About the deception, you obviously refer to Operation Bodyguard; which it was NOT to deceive Japan. I repeat one of my previous statement: "Japan never had an active role on the war on the European scenario". It served only to deceive Germany, and it was successful.

And, for your information, I am not German. I'm Italian.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Guardian66 2 years ago
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The military mind of Nazi Germany was second to none. As you mentioned the desert fox, and other great tacticians. And yes Hitler caused the ultimate demise (thankfully.) He very could have easily won the war if he was not greedy , and listened to his military minds. Thankfully he did not. I was merely challenging the comment regarding the Third Reichs technology. Great debate sir.
Posted by MarkCarbons 2 years ago
Thanks for the appreciation, Guardian66. It's nonetheless obvious how Germany lost due to Hitler. He was too pretentious, he thought he could take over the major superpowers. Which he actually did...but NOT in a good way. He paved the road to disaster with his pride: He could have won, since they had advanced technology and incredibly smart generals like Erwin Rommel and Erich von Manstein.
Posted by Guardian66 2 years ago
This is a great debate. However, I do not think you can make the notion that Nazi Germany was not ahead of the technological power curve. The fall (thank god,) of the Third Reich was all on Hitler's shoulder. One comes to mind that would have changed the entire course of the war in Europe. In 1942 the Germans invented the STG44. The grandfather of all magazine fed military rifles (AK47, M4, FAL, etc) This weapon would have replaced the K98K Bolt Action and delivered lethality from 0-300 meters with astounding rates of fire and accuracy. It was not until late in the war when Hitler decided he needed it and named it the "Sturmgewehr"or "Storm Rifle." By this point however it was far too late. From small arms you roll into cannons. Carl Gustav (yes same name as the current Gustav Recoiless,) invented the world's largest cannon which was able to launch a 7 Ton Shell over 29 miles. Lastly, Nazi Germany had some of the foremost technological thinkers. Claiming they lost the war due to Technology is non-sense. The Third Reich dismantled because of logistics and pure tactical stupidity. After the war it turns out Nazi Germany has been the first to invent jet propulsion for the ME262. It is also worth noting many scientists went to work in the USSR post WW2. Many Russian small arms, and mainly optics (Carl Zeiss,) were of Nazi Origin. Great debate folks
Posted by minecraftfordayz123 2 years ago
Very true...
Posted by MarkCarbons 2 years ago
HeavenlyPanda, you are absolutely right.
Posted by HeavenlyPanda 2 years ago
Hitler could have won if only he hasn't had been such a big headed idiot.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.