The Instigator
DudeHouse
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
volcan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

If America never joined WW2 Germany would have lost anyways. 2

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,521 times Debate No: 65293
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

DudeHouse

Pro

If America never joined WW2 Germany would have lost anyways.
volcan

Con

Germany would have been to and cause Japan could have been convinced to attack the USSR
Debate Round No. 1
DudeHouse

Pro

So, without the threat of the American army advancing from the West, could Germany have directed enough manpower to the Eastern front to have halted the Russian advance?

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?
volcan

Con

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
Debate Round No. 2
DudeHouse

Pro

US was supplying Allies before it joined the war therefore it can still supply without joining the war.

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. [1]

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 [2]

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. [3]

[1] http://www.foxnews.com...
[2] , [3] calculation in comments
volcan

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
DudeHouse

Pro

The majority of Japan"s land troops were already committed to the Soviet front. [1] Historically, Japan's navy put up a good fight against USA, but had this navy been free to assist against the Soviets then it would not have helped that much as it was primarily a land battle. Japan had an early advantage in the air, but Soviets quickly neutralized that by improving its fighters. [1]

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?

[1] http://www.historynet.com...
volcan

Con

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).
Debate Round No. 4
DudeHouse

Pro

Thanks for honest opinions about Stalingrad and Kursk. To me, that gives you more cred.

USA had 5 troops at El Alamein [1] 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 [2] The turning point of the German-Soviet front had already happened at Kursk in July 1943 [3]

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.

[1] [2] [3] see sources in comments
volcan

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
DudeHouse
Yeah i just joined this site and it doesnt seem like these debates get many votes
Posted by volcan 2 years ago
volcan
well its a tie
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
DudeHouse
Yeah haha i know. The problem is i get so into it when i debate that i cant get any work done. If u want to set it up one week from today then ill debate u about whatever ww2 thing u want
Posted by volcan 2 years ago
volcan
Well it be fun to debate
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
DudeHouse
I dont know if invading russia was a mistake. I think it was just poorly done.... Hitler making military decisions from thousands of miles away, Hitler ignoring advice from the best generals in the world. Hitler had this all or nothing mentality. It paid off many times, but it wasnt appropriate for every decision. He could never retreat even when it was the only ration decision left.
Posted by volcan 2 years ago
volcan
I'm thinking of doing one where we debate what was germany's bigger mistake declaring on the USA or invading the Soviet Union.
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
DudeHouse
Hey great debate! Thanks for taking the difficult side. You posted some good points that definitely made me think, especially about Japan attacking the Soviet Union. While I still think that wouldn't have tipped the balance, it definitely would have given them better odds where perhaps they could have capitalized on a mistake.

Tempted to take you up on that other debate you posted. Too busy at the moment though. Let's have another one soon!
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
DudeHouse
[3] from Round 3

Battle of Kursk Military Might

Tanks
Soviets: 3,600 [a]
Germans (historically): 2,700 [a]
Soviets have 33% more tanks
Germany gets an additional 300 tanks (10% of 3,000)
Germans (without America in war): 3,000 (2,700 + 300)
Soviets have 20% more tanks
Germans gain a 13% marginal increase

Soldiers:
Soviets: 1,300,000 [a]
Germans (historically): 900,000 [a]
Soviets have a 44% more soldiers
Germany gets an additional 70,000 soldiers (10% of 700,000)
Germans (without America in war): 970,000
Soviets have 34% more soldiers
Germans gain a 10% marginal increase

[a] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
DudeHouse
[2] from Round 3

On DDay, 2 of the 5 armies were American. 2 more were British, and 1 was Canadian. [a] So without America, Allies can only assault Germany with 60% of the force they could have with America"s help. So this means that Germany could have done the same with 60% of it"s force. But historically, Germany could not hold off the invasion force. So I assume Germany makes it a priority to prevent an Allied assault into Germany. So without America, Germany does not send a proportionate amount (40%) of its Atlantic forces to its Russian front. Of this 40%, 20% stays on the Atlantic wall. The other 20% is sent to Germany"s Soviet front.

Germany"s force on the Atlantic wall is 46 infantry divisions, 9 Panzer tank divisions. [b] Assuming there are 15,000 men in a division [c], this equates to 690,000 infantry men (46 x 15,000). We"ll round up to 700,000. Assuming there are 328 tanks in a Panzer tank division [d], this equates to 2,952 tanks. We"ll round up to 3,000. 20% of 3,000 is 600. 20% of 700,000 is 140,000. So Germany gets an additional 600 tanks and 140,000 soldiers on it"s Soviet front. Planes, artillery, etc all increase proportionally.

[a] http://www.waltsdorsai.net...
[b] http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...
[c] http://www.candlepowerforums.com...
[d] http://spartacus-educational.com...
No votes have been placed for this debate.