If America never joined WW2 Germany would have lost anyways. 2
Debate Rounds (5)
Also, without the threat of the American military, could Japan have, at minimum, caused Russia to divert enough forces away from its border with Germany so that Germany would not have collapsed?
So I believe the answer to this debate can be solved by answering the following 3 questions:
1.Determine the strength of the historical armies on both the German-Russian front and the Russian-Japanese front.
2.Determine the new theoretical military strengths the armies on these fronts.
3.Predict if the increase in German and Japanese strength combined with the decrease in Russian strength would have been enough to reverse the historical outcome of the war.
I say we hold other factors constant for purposes of the debate, and just focus on the numbers, total available troops, tanks, planes etc. Do you agree?
Russia moved a large majority their tanks and solders east to deal with Germany because Japan was more concerned with the USA at the start. So Japan would have caught the USSR off guard. Also, incase your wondering why I'm not mentioning Italy, I fell Italy was more like Germany's lap dog.
Another thing you need to consider is if Britain and the USSR joined economy would not have been strong enough to beat the Axis. The USA economy out produced the whole axis by a factor of 3. So without the USA the allies would be having less ships, tanks, planes etc then Germany or Japan
Agreed, Italy is a non-factor.
In Operation August Storm, Soviets crushed the Japanese, losing only 12,000 forces. Therefore, Soviets can at minimum hold their front with Japan without taking forces away from their German front. 
Without US, Germany can hold off Allied forces with 80% of it"s given forces. Therefore German forces on the Soviet front get a 20% boost 
10% go to Stalingrad. The increase in tanks does not help because the tanks were not effective in the rubble-filled city streets. The additional soldiers die of cold and hunger. " Soviet victory
10% increase in forces as Kursk. Battle is very close, but Soviets win by a narrow margin. Because they win at Kursk, defeat is inevitable for Germany. 
 ,  calculation in comments
The Soviet union invaded Japan at the end of World War 2 when they were already weakened. If Japan surprise invaded the USSR at the same time Germany did it could have a different impact on Russia.
Also with the fall of France in spring 1940, ports such as Brest, France were quickly turned into large submarine bases from which British trade could be attacked. This resulted in a huge rise in sinking of British shipping. The period between the fall of France and the British containment of the threat was referred to as the first happy time by the U Boat commanders. So the British would not had been able to do d-day the same way.
Agreed about D-Day. D-Day would not have happened. But Britain would not have collapsed. Germany would still have to man the Atlantic wall.
Also, please counter my last argument by answering the following questions:
Do you agree with my calculations about the new German soldiers and tanks that will go to the Soviet front?
If you do not agree, can you offer you own estimate?
Do you think Stalingrad would have been different?
Do you think Kursk would have been different?
I agree with what you say about Stalingrad and kursk.
Ok now I think the main part of our argument has come from whether the battles between the Germans and Soviets would be different mainly, but what about battles like El Alamein I and other battles that just the British and Americans were involved in together. how many of those battles outcomes change without the USA. Also if Japan had chosen to do war with Britain instead, they could have been beaten because the British would do very little against the Japanese on there own which was made clear in the battles of Malaya and Singapore(which resulted in the fall of Singapore to the Japanese, and the largest surrender of British-led military personnel in history).
USA had 5 troops at El Alamein  That"s not a typo. F-I-V-E. In my opinion, 5 troops were not enough to change the battle.
Historically, Britain lost the Battle of Singapore, so that adds nothing to your argument.
Aside from DDay, the most pivotal role USA played was at Battle of Bulge. But this was Dec 1944  The turning point of the German-Soviet front had already happened at Kursk in July 1943 
After Kursk, Germany could not stop the Soviet advance. Additionally, Soviet war production was outpacing that of Germany. This all happened before the major historical Allied victories at Bulge and DDay.
Therefore, although Germany was not yet defeated when USA joined the war, the war had turned irreversibly in Soviets favor. Had America never joined, the war would have dragged on a few more years, but ultimately, Germany would have been defeated.
   see sources in comments
I think I'm out of arguments. Honestly, I never did disagree with you about this topic. Germany never would had been win with or without Japan(again ignoring Italy). I joined this debate because it looked like a fun topic to debate. And I am a big World War 2 buff so I wanted to debate this. So thanks for debating with me and I hope to debate with you again.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.