The Instigator
WorldWar2Debator
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
henryzietlow
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

If Britain and France kept their empires but swapped places in Europe, the Nazis would've won WW2

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
WorldWar2Debator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,891 times Debate No: 70194
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (4)

 

WorldWar2Debator

Pro

Yes, this is a fairly unorthodox argument. Please comment if you want to challenge me.

What I mean is, had France and Britain kept their empires, but swapped places in Europe (France as the island, Britain as the mainland) Hitler would've won WW2.
henryzietlow

Con

Thanks for this wonderful topic, Tony. I personally believe that the nazis were terrible, and God hated them. So, no matter where the countries were located, the nazis would go to hell, because god hates nazis. This is made clear in genesis 5.
"When Jared had lived a hundred and sixty-two years he became the father of Enoch."
Now, this may not be literal, but since its the bible, everything is a metaphor. I believe that the word "Enoch" kind of sounds like "nazi." Therefore, god obviously hates nazis.
Thanks again Tim for this great topic
Debate Round No. 1
WorldWar2Debator

Pro

Thank you for accepting Con, however I do say I am pretty confused by your choice of opening statement, which is completely irrelevant to the task at hand. Also, my name is not Tony or Tim.

Anyways, I believe that the battle of France (Britain) would've been like World War 1: A huge stalemate. The British Empire was comparatively larger and stronger then the French 'Empire'. The British Empire was a self-sufficient machine, able to match up against the Ottomans, Austro-Hungarians and Germans in World War 1. Their naval power had blockaded the Germans, and were successful and holding the line in the Battle of Jutland. The Ottomans only held off the British and French joint Naval attempted breakthrough using heavy coastal batteries.

The British Empire had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, at least 50% of the rest of Africa, India and Malaysia and Burma in it's empire. That would supply enough troops to counter the Germans, let alone forgetting about the British troops from mainland Britain.

The French, even with it's smaller empire of Indo-China (Vietnam) and parts of Africa, would've provided support, but would not supply as many to counter the Germans (as shown in May 10th- June 17th 1940).

However, I believe that Britain would get defeated. Assuming Germany use the same tactic to trick the British like they succeeded to in real life (Faking an attack through Belgium, then attacking from the rear using the Ardennes) the British main forces would've been cut off, and when the British are beaten at Dunkirk (Dover) they will lose their main army, allowing Germany to march on Paris (London).

Knowing the way France was easily beaten, and knowing why the Germans decided not to invade mainland Britain (France, the reason being aircraft) knowing French aircraft, I think they would've been beaten, the Wehrmacht lands in France (Britain) and the Germans sweep up and kick France out of the war.

I also have evidence that Hitler had NO intention to fight a war on 2 fronts, proven as he went to the trouble of a pact with his biggest enemy. So, assuming this is true, the Germans WOULD NOT attack Russia until France (Britain) was beaten.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...
henryzietlow

Con

Alright, Tom. You are being really rude. Judges, take this into consideration when voting on conduct. But, since you have failed to refute my arguments, I will state them again.
The entire bible is a metaphor, and by closely reading, it is clear how much God hates nazis. This is clear in genesis 6.
"But Noah found favor in the eyes of the lord."
It is clear that Noah is the opposite of hitler. So, if god likes Noah, he thus hates hitler.
This is also clear in chapter 10.
"The Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites"
The word "Sinites" uses the word "Sin." Therefore, the Sinites are pretty much hitler. God hatred is implied, because it is a metaphor.
Since it is clear that God hates nazis, the nazis will never win
Thanks again Jim for this wonderful topic. I do think that God hates nazis, and the nazis are stupid.
Debate Round No. 2
WorldWar2Debator

Pro

You are the one to have failed to even state anything relevant to the topic at hand. You have completely stated comments that are unrelated to the topics at hand, hating on Nazis and such. I feel no need to further my argument, instead deciding to extend. Being the last round, I'd like to thank my opponent for this 'debate' and wish my opponent luck in the result of this and his future debates.
henryzietlow

Con

Judges, Jimmy is still being really rude. By extension, Jimmy must be a nazi. By voting for Jimmy in this debate, you are supporting nazis, which is against God. I urge you all to take a step back, and look at the big picture. Nazis are terrible. God is great. Vote for God
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Malacoda 1 year ago
Malacoda
Haha, I would but I'm afraid voting con would compromise my integrity.
Posted by henryzietlow 1 year ago
henryzietlow
Thank you for saying that, malacoda. I'm sure that you are a good Christian, and always remember that God loves you. Vote con
Posted by Malacoda 1 year ago
Malacoda
WorldWar2Debator, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. When life gives you trolls, be hilarious. If you don't want to be trolled, set restrictions and screen your opponents before they ruin your debate. That being said, henryzietlow did a commendable job of trolling. I enjoyed the empirical evidence he presented and the wild logical leaps he made. Thank you for making me laugh henry.
Posted by volcan 1 year ago
volcan
Herny you mind explaining why he is a nazi.
Posted by henryzietlow 1 year ago
henryzietlow
WW2 debater- Its clear that you're a nazi. Stop. Follow God
Posted by KonstanBen 1 year ago
KonstanBen
Believing in the divine creator doesn't mean you accept the creation story word for word. Ask any Jewish scholar and they will explain to you that the bible is a metaphor for the greater creation story. Additionally, you were only able to send that comment because G-d made humans on this earth.
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 1 year ago
WorldWar2Debator
Yeah, no Konstan, it's something called my brain. It makes my decisions for me, using conscience and logic. Unfortunately, that logic doesn't involve a 6000 year myth... Sorry.... Oh yeah, and what do you study to learn that? Oh yeah. SCIENCE. The belief God runs through your body is idiotic
Posted by KonstanBen 1 year ago
KonstanBen
WorldWar2Debator, who gave you the mind so that you were able to be an atheist? G-d. You need to submit yourself to your place in his holy grand plan,
Posted by henryzietlow 1 year ago
henryzietlow
Seriously Jeremiah, you need to calm down. It's clear that you can't deny the word of god. You need to embrace god. He has plans for you
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 1 year ago
WorldWar2Debator
Well I'm an atheist, that despises Christianity to his death.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SamStevens 1 year ago
SamStevens
WorldWar2DebatorhenryzietlowTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually had an argument. Conduct goes to pro since Pro provided arguments and remained serious. Grammar is neutral. Arguments go to Pro; Con did not argue any points or offer any rebuttals. Sources also go to Pro.
Vote Placed by volcan 1 year ago
volcan
WorldWar2DebatorhenryzietlowTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: con did not argue anything
Vote Placed by maydaykiller 1 year ago
maydaykiller
WorldWar2DebatorhenryzietlowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: con did not argue at all
Vote Placed by Jingle_Bombs 1 year ago
Jingle_Bombs
WorldWar2DebatorhenryzietlowTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was trolling.