The Instigator
firestorm
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WheezySquash8
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Germany vs Japan

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 6 votes the winner is...
WheezySquash8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,481 times Debate No: 37292
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

firestorm

Pro

This debate is based on the fact that if Germany won WW2 and started another war with Japan who would win.

there are a few rules that must be agreed to.

1. there mustn't be speculation only facts
2. there should be no mention of the political allingment or politics behind the two countries.
3. first round is accepting. the following rounds follow this structure, second round is standard infantry, third round is armor, fourth round is weaponry and environment. fifth round is closing.
4. my side is pro Germany so you will have to defend Japan

if you can agree to those rules you can argue against me.

WheezySquash8

Con

In my opinion, Japan would have won World War 2. I am very interested in seeing what you have to say on this topic.
Debate Round No. 1
firestorm

Pro

firestorm forfeited this round.
WheezySquash8

Con

-Introduction-

The Japanese Empire, and Nazi Germany have long been prolonged allies during World War ll. Since you think that they would face off eventually, I will be supporting my side which is the Japanese Empire. First of all, since you said, "Germany". I am going to specifically talk about ONLY Germany, and I am going to exclude Italy, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria out of this debate since you are not talking about all of the Axis Powers. I am also only basing my information off the status's of each Empire before the end of war. Since you wanted me to only talk about infantry this round, that is what I will do. These are not speculations, they are facts based off common sense, and I will cite my sources. I hope that you cite your sources too.

-Infantry-

The Japanese had it easy compared to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany has 2,200,000 soldiers, which was not a very good thing. Yes, you can say that's a lot, but it's not enough to occupy all of the nations that Germany owned, and prevent attacks by the Allied Powers. Germany would have to send a lot of soldiers to head East making their western nations highly vulnerable to being taken back. France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway were all vulnerable to attack, giving the Allied Powers the chance to advance forward and reclaim what is rightfully is there's, and end Nazi Germany. To top this, Germany's infantry could not access Japan without charging across the Soviet Union. As you may already know, the Soviet Union had many soldiers. It is unknown how many there were, but it is known that they would've been enough to decrease Germany's soldiers by a good amount. So basically, Germany would be worrying about The United Kingdom, Russia, and The United States. Japan, meanwhile would've not needed to worry as much because Russia, and Japan were neutral with each other at the time, and the Allied Powers that had access to attacking Japan were too paranoid at the moment to attack Japan because of it's strong Air Force which is another story. The only real threat to Japan was China, and they would've waited for the US's support before attacking Japan considering Japan's strong air force/army. The majority of the allies (US, and Canada) were assisting the United Kingdom before Asia (only occasionally stopping Japanese invasions), and would've only focused on attacking Japan if they attacked the Australian mainland which wouldn't have happened until Japan was strong enough, or took all of China, and became too much of a threat to ignore. Germany's infantry although strong, would not have been good enough to handle protecting western Europe from the allies, and advancing across Russia to face Japan.

-Sources-

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

http://simple.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)

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

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

http://www.mapsofworld.com...

http://www.ushmm.org...
Debate Round No. 2
firestorm

Pro

firestorm forfeited this round.
WheezySquash8

Con

- Introduction-

Alright, since you obviously either don't want to debate, or you gave up, I'll just get this over with. You wanted a debate, so we're having a debate. This round I will discuss armor like you wanted me to.

-Armor-

Since you only said armor, I am going to assume that you meant armored tanks. The Japanese had about 23 variants of tanks while Nazi Germany had only 7 tank variants. This shows us that the Japanese Empire was studying, and creating by far more types of tanks compared to Nazi Germany. If you still don't believe the fact that Japan had more tanks, Germany only had two Tank Artillery divisions, while Japan had three. Japan used Troops, Planes, and Ships, however more then Tanks, but the majority or Japan's land victories at least partially involved tanks. Japan didn't really get much use out of tanks because of the fact that they were mostly taking the Asian mainland, and islands in the Pacific Ocean. So basically Japan never really needed tanks unless they were attacking mainland areas, and they would've preferred not to use tanks if they had to ship them across oceans, or if they needed to use them in dense, jungle areas.

-Conclusion-

So, in summary, the Japanese Empire had more tank variants, and better one, but they never really needed to use them because of their location. The Nazi Germany would've had more of a use of tanks because of their location. Japan, however if attacking mainland, would've had stronger, more sturdier tanks compared to Germany. This is honestly a hard thing to determine, but I am very sure that Japan would have better tanks if they needed to use them.

-Sources-

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
firestorm

Pro

firestorm forfeited this round.
WheezySquash8

Con

- Introduction-

Since it is the third round of this debate, I will be talking about weaponry and environment. I really don't understand why you aren't even attempting to debate. You have by far an easier side to defend in a debate. I would also like to say that I call The Empire of Japan The Japanese Empire. Sorry if you get annoyed by this. Well anyways, onto the final topics.

-Weaponry-

The Japanese Empire's resources (which will be mentioned later) was perfect for them to create weaponry at fast rates if they had time. Japan at the time was using Suicide Bombers, Balloon Bombs, Standard Weaponry such as guns, and were experimenting with Biological Warfare, and Nuclear Warfare. If the Japanese had time, they could've potentially fully developed these things, and improved on their tanks, aircrafts, warships, and subs. As many may know, Biological Warfare was brutal, and powerful. That is why it is a war crime now. Nuclear Warfare has already shown it's power during Cold War experiments, and the Nuclear Bombings of Japan after Nazi Germany was finished. Japan also used Chemical Warfare which as we also may know, was a war crime, and could kill many (as seen in Syria). There were also many rumors that the Axis Powers were experimenting on Orbital Aircrafts that could potentially obliterate cities. An example was that during World War 2, The Nazis (possibly Japan, and Italy too) were working on a sub-orbital aircrafts that would get to the highest possible point of Earth's atmosphere, find the target, and drop a bomb that would scatter radioactive particles over the target leading to radioactive sickness, deformations, etc. This is why it be easy to suspect that Japan could've been in on the project because of the fact that they were experimenting on Biological, and Nuclear Warfare.

-Sources-

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

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

http://www.armaghplanet.com...

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

http://www.cddc.vt.edu...

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

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

-Environment-

Environment was easily one of Japan's biggest pros. The majority of the areas in which the Japanese Empire held were lush, jungle regions. Japan knew their jungles more than the Nazis would've, and would've had the upper hand. Take The Vietnam War for example. The Vietnamese knew their jungle environment way more than the Americans which was one of the major reasons why they beat them. The same advantage would've been for Japan. You may be thinking, "Couldn't the Nazis just use radars to track the Japanese?" My answer was that the Nazis didn't have tracking technology. The Allies were the first to invent Radars which was one of the main reasons why the Allies won the war, and didn't keep on getting sunk by German U Boats/ Subs. The Allies obviously wouldn't have given the Nazis, Italians, or Japanese the technology which would've lead for the Nazis to have a harder time tracking the Japanese. Japan also dominated islands, and shared borders with almost no other nations except a few nations that weren't too developed yet such as China. China was the only real threat as stated before, and they weren't developed enough to fight yet, and the only real thing that the allies did to respond to China being invaded, was to cut the Japanese trade with America. Japan had plenty of resources though from their invaded land. Another reason why Japan had an advantage was due to Japan's strong military. Many people consider Japan's Navy, and Air Force to be the most dominant traits of Japan's army during WW2. Meanwhile, Germany did not have so much luck. I already stated this, but I will state this again. Germany had two fronts to maintain, less ocean, and more borders. Look back at my section on infantry to learn more.

-Sources-

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

http://historum.com...

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

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

http://www.britannica.com...
Debate Round No. 4
firestorm

Pro

I appologizes for not being apart if this debate, I commened your enthusiasm for keeping at it. the reason why i havent been able to participate in the deabte is because i have had important studies for exams


WheezySquash8

Con

It's ok. I too have been busy with schoolwork, and had to manage time to debate. It was great debating with you.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Kiroen 3 years ago
Kiroen
Then you aren't going to find anyone who accepts the debate. Japan's strength was the airforce, as their most dangerous enemy would be the US, while Germany highlighted precisely due to the battles won at the continent. In a post WWII scenario, Germany is in a much better position since they would have get the Soviet oil resources, and therefore they could have kept using and developing the armored and motorized forces.
Posted by firestorm 3 years ago
firestorm
Apologies for not making it clear, this is a debate about if Germany won WW2 they would start another war with Japan. The topics that will be debated are already stated. The reason why there is no navy and air force is simply I couldn't fit it in. I am simply talking about a debate about battle between Germany and Japan, considering all the area occupied by both sides and the tactics and armaments between the two forces. Not just a comparison of specs of the mp40 to the type 100.
Posted by DebatingInStereo 3 years ago
DebatingInStereo
Your debate topic is unclear, and even if it weren't I have a feeling it would be stupid anyway. Try using grammar next time.
Posted by Ver 3 years ago
Ver
for a second I thought you were talking about hetalia XD
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
I think he is trying to argue that if Germany won WW2 they would've proceded to beat Japan in another war.
Posted by Paecmaker 3 years ago
Paecmaker
No airforce or navy, strange as those were Japans strong parts.

Also do you count occupied zones?

I also have some trouble understanding what you want to discuss, is this a simple vechicle and weapons comparison or are we going to debate about a simulated battle?
Posted by Consolemaster001 3 years ago
Consolemaster001
Pretty much. What are you talking about ?
Posted by Franciscanorder 3 years ago
Franciscanorder
Are you saying who would have won in a fight? What you want to debate is not clear.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by mikicat10 3 years ago
mikicat10
firestormWheezySquash8Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: WheezySquash8 won mainly because his opponent did not have time to debate and forfeited most of the rounds....... He also seems to have thourly researshed his arguments and think through them.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
firestormWheezySquash8Tied
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: FF. I suggest opening it as a challenge, using mostly the same arguments.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
firestormWheezySquash8Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, combined with very good case from Con.
Vote Placed by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
firestormWheezySquash8Tied
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: ff
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
firestormWheezySquash8Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
firestormWheezySquash8Tied
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: ff