The Instigator
Hawkeye117
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Alduin
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Germany and Japan could have won WWII if it weren't for Hitler and Yamato

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 3 votes the winner is...
Hawkeye117
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,056 times Debate No: 61391
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Hawkeye117

Pro

Germany could have won the war if it weren't for Hitler being the commander of the entire German military and Yamato attacking pearl harbor when he did. Con may present his first argument good luck and lets keep this friendly.
Alduin

Con

The German industry and economy could never outlast the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union. And Japan's naval and aircraft capacity was next to nothing in contrast to The United States. It wouldn't have mattered who was leading the Axis powers at the time. Rommel was unable to hold Africa, Italy surrendered shortly after the Allied invasion in 43, and the Soviet Union was pushing back at the Germans with their new T-34s. Add to that the fact that the US Navy defeated 4 Japanese aircraft carriers at Midway, the Soviets ousted the German 6th army at Stalingrad, US and British bombers bombing strategic targets in Germany day and night, the discontinuation of German heavy tanks and their projects in 44, the Allied landings in Normandy, the collapse of the Vichy French, the US victories on Sipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, the liberation of France and the defeat of the last major German armored divisions in the Ardennes, and the Soviet captures of Odessa, Leningrad, Warsaw and Berlin, the death of Admiral Yamato, and the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. The Axis were foolish to try anything against the Allies, and they paid the price.
Debate Round No. 1
Hawkeye117

Pro

While everything you said is correct historically my question poses that if it weren"t for Hitler controlling the entirety of the German military and if it weren"t for Yamamoto leading the attack on Pearl Harbor the Axis could have won the war and we would all be under imperial Japanese rule or Nazi Germany rule. To back up my statements yes Germany doesn"t have many resources per say like the US but before the US got involved Germany had control of the entirety of Europe except the USSR, but you have to remember Hitler mad a deal with Stalin saying I"m going to do all this and I well give you some land that are ethnically Russian as long as you stay out of the war and don"t attack us; of course Stalin said yes free land who could deny that. Hitler"s mistake came when he launched operation Barbarossa aka the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hitler greatly under-estimated the Soviets power of rebellion and the Russian winter which centuries before is what also halted Napoleon"s invasion of Russia which lead to his defeat (and that"s why we learn history to not repeat the mistakes of past). The reason Hitler planed the invasion was due to the failed invasion of Brittan and the need for oil. During that time the USSR was in control of the coccus oil fields a huge source of oil and that"s something Germany needed greatly to keep the war machine going. Instead of doing the logical of doing business with the Soviets Hitler decided on an invasion. If Hitler was any the more wiser Hitler would have continued the shelling of Brittan but diverted the bulk of his forces to Africa to help Rommel and once in control of Africa then Hitler could have moved his forces to the middle east and taken over that area and exploit it for its oil and not have to go to war with the Soviets. The irony here was Hitler originally made the agreement with Stalin because he knew that fighting two fronts was asinine and had looked at the lessons learned from WWI but soon forgot them once he invaded the USSR. The easy thing Hitler could have done was take the Middle East leave the Soviets alone and worry about taking over Brittan. Once Brittan had fallen and was under Nazi control then all Hitler had to do was build up his military bigger and all his resources and wait for the Japanese to finish up with the pacific, which brings me to my next point Pearl Harbor. As we all should know December 7, 1941 the Japanese imperial Navy led a surprise attack on Perl Harbor in an effort to cripple/ destroy the American navel fleet which was stationed there. Admiral Yamamoto lead this attack too soon, I say this due to Japan leading a ground offensive against the Chinese. What Tajo and Yamamoto should have realized and done was finish up the capture and take over of china and then use the resources of China to build more warships, tanks and equipment. Once sufficient resources were built up Japan should have lead an invasion of Sidney, Australia while also then launching an attack on Pearl Harbor and the US bases on the Philippines and get the oil with Australia falling to the Japanese Americas navy defeated then Germany would launch an invasion on the east coast while Japan did the same on the west coast. Yes it would have been a long drawn out fight but the US military in total only numbered 300,000 and with no support from any allied nation as they all fell America would fall within a few months as we would have to build up our industry our military all of which couldn"t happen so easily as the US would be sandwiched on each coast and American industry would be bombed just like what the US and Brittan did during our offence during WWII how we bombed German industry they would do the same to us and it would only be a matter of time till we fell and next would be Russia same technique and soon Germany would own the western world and Japan would own the eastern world. And that"s how Germany and Japan were stupid during WWII and if they did it strategically could have controlled the world I look forward to your rebuttal and good luck.
Sources: American military: http://www.nationalww2museum.org...
Alduin

Con

Ok here are some things you should understand:

The Africa Korps was never gonna break through Montgomery's lines. The Germans had been fighting for almost a year, and the Italians long before that. Monty was not going to break. And Rommel was never going to see any oil in the Middle East.

No general in the German army would ever have defeated the Soviet Union. (Espically since it was being supplied with USA weapons)

Great Britain was not going to be bombed into submission. Check the stats of German losses during the Battle of Britain. If Germany kept that up, there would be no Luftwaffe, and that would make it 1000x easier for Soviet forces to march West.

Japan did not have the economy to compete with the United States it doesn't matter if they had the resources, they don't have the economy to pull it off. Remember the whole reson Japan bombed the USA is because stopped shipping oil to them.

And if you think Japan was going to oust Chang Ki Shek and Mao Zaedong from China, then you need to go read over some history books.

And there is no way Britain was going to stand by and watch their largest piece of land (Australia) get taken over and not do anything about it. And the USA would never collapse in a few months. Even the Japanese didn't dare try it. Americans don't take to kindly to being subjugated.

But all of your hypothetical scenarios would never happen. Neither Germany, Japan and Italy had the economies for a victory. That's something you should research.
Debate Round No. 2
Hawkeye117

Pro

Well first out yet again you are mostly correct but if you read everything I put down you would have known that I said Hitler should have kept the British at bay by continuously bombing them, and as a side note you would know the bulk of the German attack force used during the battle of Brittan were bombers which as we know with the US bombing runs bombers were easy to take down and the bombers Germany used the Stuka, Junkers 88, Heinkel 111, Dornier 17, and Dornier 215 those were the bombers used with only the BF-109 and Messerschmitt 110 were the only fighters used; and as we know the b-17 was a very protected bomber and more protected and armed than any of the German bombers and as we see the B-17 was easily taken down now look at the German bombers easy to kill so all those losses were due to the massive amount of bombers used and the frail nature of them. That all said with regards to Africa look at this photo showing Africa and how it was controlled in 1940 http://en.wikipedia.org... as you can see Egypt and Sudan main areas Brittan still had control over was surrounded by the axis and as I said before if Germany just kept Brittan busy with bombings and concentrated the bulk of their forces into the Afrika Corps (yes its actually spelled Afrika) lead by Rommel Africa would have fallen easily you have to reamer Hitler barley supplied Rommel and his Afrika Corps which is why Montgomery seemed so powerful he was fighting an under supplied force with limited resources now it Hitler sent supplies to the Afrika Corps would have easily taken over Africa then the middle east. After gathering enough supplies all Germany would have to do is toughen the blockade against Brittan then run and air raid and land invasion at the same time Brittan would only fall in a matter of time as the only reason Brittan was still standing was because they were still being supplied by America. And I hope you know with all the resources that Germany would get by taking the Middle East there economy would be the best in the world. While with Japan yes they were fighting a formidable foe but the thing that ended the Japanese takeover of China was the US launching the Pacific front while Japan had to supply troops to the Pacific and China at the same time stretching their military thinly and due to the Burma road at that point it became inevitable that Japan lost the war but like I said if Japan never launched the attack on Pearl Harbor as I said all Japan would have to do is focus on China and if need be call Germany for help attacking on the west and Japan on the east as the USSR wouldn"t be an issue as Germany would have never attacked and with China taken Japan would have all the resources needed and could get oil from German held middle east and Japan would ship over needed metals to Germany to keep the war machine rolling. And you also bring up Lend lease in which America and Brittan supply the USSR with weapons well that all started in March 11, 1941 after the Soviets declared war on Germany due to German invasion, but as I"m proposing Germany would have never invaded which would lead to lend lease never happening. And as for Australia there would be nothing Brittan could do Blockades would stop aid going to Australia and Brittan would be occupied with its issues with the Germans than helping one of its colonies half way around the world. And while yes you are true Americans don"t take to kindly to being subjugated but if you look in our history you will see the Nazi party had already had placed some roots in the US and with a standing army of only 300,000 the US would be overwhelmed and would lose ground fast as the onslaught form both coasts would cripple the nation. And yes while we know now that Germany, Italy, and Japan could never win due to economic restraints when you look at the scenario I bring up both economies would boom and grow huge with the Nazis controlling the oil fields and the Japanese controlling the Philippian oil fields and Chinese vast mineral reserves.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
http://www.history.com...
Alduin

Con

These are hypothetical situations. They cannot be proven true. I'm not going to get in hypothetical outcomes of battles again, because the reality is that their economies couldn't support a war effort that size. The economy doesn't work like a video game where you capture a country and instantly use those resources to capture another. Germany, Italy and Japan were totalitarian states. This means that the government forces control over the market. You will never ever in a million years win a war if you controll every aspect of your economy. People look at the Soviet Union as the best counter argument for thes, but in 1990 the Soviet Union collapsed because of economic reasons. Another reason is innovation. In a free market, anyone can submit an idea to make the war swing in favor of their side. The p51, b29, flamethrower and rocket Sherman tanks are just a few examples. In the private sector, the goal is to design weapon to be effective and cheap, without risking the lives of the soldiers. You don't see much innovation in the Axis armies. Those are facts. In the hypothetical war anything could have happened, but the reality paints a much different picture.
Debate Round No. 3
Hawkeye117

Pro

Hawkeye117 forfeited this round.
Alduin

Con

A hypothetical argument vs reality
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Hawkeye117 2 years ago
Hawkeye117
ok i just have to say this you say in the Nazi party there was no room for innovation obviously you dont know your history as all i have to say is the ME-262, the Komet the V1, V2 (first human object sent into space), and the V3 and almost makeing a nuclear bomb before america did Germany was the most militarally advanced nation during the time just couldnt mass produce there weapons like the US which had adverage weapons/ vehicals but could mass produce just have to point it out
Posted by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
" The military chiefs in Japan made the statement that if they attacked the west coast of America they would face a gun pointed at them from behind every blade of grass" --- popular misattribution. Same thing with the 'sleeping giant' thing. We started to believe our own propoganda. Yamamoto know that one base in the middle of the Pacific did not the mainland main, nor would siezing it in any way cripple the US's production. The much like the Soviets gave credit to 'General January', we also have Admiral Pacific to thanks. Its simply to much ocean to cover in hopes of a mainland invasion.
Posted by Hawkeye117 2 years ago
Hawkeye117
sorry con I had spotty internet connection while on the road sorry to forgot the last round
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago
Spedman
It was ultimately not Yamamoto's decision to attack us. He was a realist who believed most likely they would not defeat the U.S. However, Tojo and Hirohito thought it was a good idea to attack us, but they were sadly mistaken. Yamamoto was an honorable man who was one of the best commanders the Japanese possessed. It was a travesty we had to kill him.
I do agree with Pro that Germany and Japan could have won. Hitler and Tojo made a very stupid decision to try and fight the U.S while occupied in another war. The Soviet Union came very close to falling, but the Western Allies put so much pressure on Hitler he was forced to take many of his forces of the Eastern Front. Japan could have finished it conquest on China had it chose not to attack the U.S.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
You guessed right.And what did I say that is not backed up by historical facts?
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
I'm guessing you're not a troll.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Yamamoto was the admiral that led the attack on Pearl Harbor. And if we had not had an idiot in the white house Japan would never have attacked us. Roosevelts policies gave us a ten year depression.Do you think that Japan would have attacked if we had had 10 years of Reagan. I do not think so.And the second amendment saved us from Japan attacking the west coast. The military chiefs in Japan made the statement that if they attacked the west coast of America they would face a gun pointed at them from behind every blade of grass.
And Hitler made the mistake of opening up two fronts. The other mistake he made was killing the Jews. God says that whoever blesses Israel, He will bless them. And whoever curses Israel the curse will come on them.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Who's this Yamato guy? The emperor of Japan at the start of the Second World War was Emperor Hirohito, and the commander of Japan's forces was Hideki Tojo. I don't quite understand what person you are referring to.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Hawkeye117AlduinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: FF-Loss of conduct. But, pro used more convincing arguments and reliable recourses.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
Hawkeye117AlduinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: FF - loss of conduct. S & G was an additional conduct point because Con mistakenly condescended by saying that he needs 'research'. personal attacks ought to be avoided in civil debates. As for arguments, they are equal.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
Hawkeye117AlduinTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: BoP satisfied. Alternate strategies were explained, and the respective advocate for the failed events are self evident. Con was fighting a battle up hill.