Germany lost WWII because he invaded Russia.
Debate Rounds (4)
Rules: No swearing, if so, I will urge a point deduction for conduct. 6,000 characters, if you forfeit, you lose. You must prove the Germany did not lose the war because they invaded Russia.
Okay, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. (Sorry about the mistake in the title, it should be "Germany lost WWII because they invaded Russia." I urge the audience to take a point of grammar away from me for my foolish mistake.)
Why Russia joined in the war
Russia joined the war in 1941 because Germany invaded them, obviously. But, why didn't they just declare war on Germany when they saw them becoming a threat? Because they signed a non-aggression pact in 1939 with Nazi Germany.  In June 1941, Germany began to invade the Soviet Union, before which Stalin had ignored reports of a German invasion. Stalin was confident that the total Allied war machine would eventually stop Germany, and the Soviets stopped the Wehrmacht some 30 kilometers from Moscow. Then Stalin began to fight back. With this assualt from both the West and East, they continued to fight until Berlin.
Most likely, if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, and actually kept the pact, they might not have got involved, giving the Nazis a higher chance of winning the war, considering that the Allies on the Eastern Front were pretty weak at the moment. But, with all the Nazis forces focusing on the West, they had a chance. Here's an interactive map of the war: http://www.worldology.com...
How the Allies and the USSR planned to defeat the Axis (And how USSR basically won the Allies the war)
The Allies were really weak at the moment, with only about 2 million troops on the eastern front compared to Nazi Germany's 4 million.  They had a conference in 1943. This was called the Tehran Conference. They met here to discuss a plan on how to close in on the Nazis. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin came to meet about it. There plan was to lead a western and eastern front to close in on Germany. Obviously, it worked.  And if Germany had actually kept the pact, there would be no western front, it would be the Allies on the eastern front relentlessly wasting troops, considering the troop difference.
The two fronts obviously met, and they conquered Berlin, defeating the Third Reich.
Those are the two main factors in the war, I expect Con to defend these.
"Actually, the Axis had absolutely no chance of winning, even without the USSR. Even without the US! The Allies had better firepower, larger armies and better strategies and technology . Yes, maybe attacking Russia was an enormous mistake and yes, it did weaken the Axis, but, they did not stand a chance against the Allies. They were way too powerful"
Where is the proof for this, because I just proved that they had way more numbers than the Allies.
Without the Western Front, the Nazis could have stretched into the Middle East
Just look at the map. http://www.worldology.com...
Click on 1940. Look at the wide stretch of land. Hungary, Romania, Turkey, etc. If they invaded all down in there, instead of the USSR, they could control the whole Middle East! The only reason the Eastern Front got stronger on the Allies side, was because the USSR supplied them with troops and supplies.
Yes, invading Russia was a stupid idea, but the Nazis were destined to lose.
"That may be true, but the Allies had the US back then too. If it was anyone who could stop Russia, it was the United States. I'm not saying Germany would have won with Russia, but Russia was back then a powerful ally, but you're forgetting one thing. Even if the Axis had more numbers than the Allies, the Allies had better technology, resources and weapons.
Yes, invading Russia was a stupid idea, but the Nazis were destined to lose."
Again, I do not see the evidence you have for all of this, and most of it is opinionated...
As I said in my previous arguments, the Axis could have used more strategy to win this war rather than invading Russia, probably one of the strongest countries at the time. They had more troops on the Eastern Front and they would keep building if they had allied with Russia or just ignored them plain and simple.
My opponent fails to rebut my arguments, he also describes how the Allies had more technology, resources, and weapons. But, he has not proved this.. so he fails to argue that, too.
I urge a vote for Pro, thank you.
France and Russia had more, and much better, tanks than Germany as of the outbreak of their hostilities in 1940. As in World War I, the French generals expected that armour would mostly serve to help infantry break the static trench lines and storm machine gun nests. They thus spread the armour among their infantry divisions...
Britain had better radar, a better trained airforce, and better planes
Both Britain and America had vastly superior non-submarine naval fleets... Germany didn't have a single aircraft carrier during the entire war, and their failed attempt to seize the vastly superior French naval fleet (Churchill ordered the Royal Navy to sink them and wipe out their shipyards) led to their eventual defeat... The only advantage they had on the water at all was their U-boats, and that was the only reason Hitler agreed to an alliance with Japan, their Navy could match the Americans...
British and American tanks were vastly superior to German tanks, but at the beginning of the war there were only a small amount of them (Germany had been getting ready for the war, the allies had to respond to it and scramble whatever they had at the time while they built more)... Their armour was better, their weapons were better, and they were more reliable...
Source: Some historian.
What more do you want? Rebuttal?
You said Germany had more troops than the Allies, but what good is a a bunch of troops against higher quality weaponry. I proved it just now. I think just copying and pasting text from some website doesn't make your point anymore valid.
At the beginning of the war the Soviet T 34 tank was superior to any other tank. It has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II.
The allies had much better long range heavy bombers and better bomb sights.
The allies had much more manufacturing capacity.
The allies had easier access to fuel supplies.
The British navy was much larger and more powerful than the Kriegsmarine.
The list could go on and on.....
I have read a lot of history books, and they all state the same...
You also forget that the Treaty of Versailles weakened Germany after the First World War.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||1|
Reasons for voting decision: I deducted point for grammar only because of Pro's request to do so. It was a very minor mistake and if he wouldn't have requested it, I would not have even considered it. Onto the arguments. Con provides only ONE source, which is wikipedia. Con had the potential to have a very strong case, but threw it away with a series of un-backed opinions. Both debaters could have expanded their case because this is a huge topic. Anyway, Pro absolutely won simply because Con refused to show any sources to credit his claims.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.