If italy and japan had switched spots, but kept their armies and navies, would the axis have won?
Debate Rounds (3)
round two: argue
round three: rebuttal
The axis would have won.
I agree with your statement about Italy being easily defeated but that would not have been enough to beat axis. Also i doubt italy would have that balls to attack the USA alone so it is unlikely they would join the war in the same fashion.
In europe, Japan would have easily crushed France and Greece, and they could keep Great Britain at bay with their superior fleet. And the invasion of the USSR may of gone way smoother. Japan could have invaded from the Black sea and march north to moscow which would have possibly caught them totally of guard.
Pro is forgetting that the British had most superiority in the sea and air in the Mediterranean, and must also remember Turkey, with the coastal batteries that beat back the Anglo-Franco attack through the Dardenelle Straits, would have held off the Japanese fleet. Also, the French and other parts of the British Empire would've also added sea and air power. I am talking about the Free French forces, not Vichy France.
Italy is important. If America attacked and succeeded in taking Italy early, then the British would've obviously allowed American reinforcements through the Middle East, full of battle experience from taking Italy, and then supplying the British to defend Egypt.
By El Alamein, the Germans were outnumbered 12:1 in terms of men. So, assuming the Japanese reinforcements actually reached North Africa, through the British Navy and Air Force, they would've been useless.
Japanese armor is not well known for being excellent. The primary Japanese tank in WW2 was the Chi-Ha, a joke compared to the British Cromwells, Matildas and Churchills. The only thing the Japanese would've reasonably supplied was men, and those men fought under a code of Bushido, a code of no surrender of and suicide. These were men fighting with rifles, bayonets and knives. Few Submachine guns, grenades, artillery and tanks were relied on, especially as the Japanese (assuming they had the same equipment) were supplied in terms of Jungle, not Desert, but Jungle warfare.
Russian manafacturing in WW2 is not to be underestimated. The Russians, throughout the war, made 106,025 tanks and self propelled guns. The Germans made 67,429 tanks and propelled guns. The Japanese made 3,724 tanks and self propelled guns throughout the war. Russia outnumbered them by themselves. I'm not even counting the British, it's huge empire, France or America.
America made 141 aircraft carriers during World War 2. The Japanese had and used only 16. With a huge 125 carrier difference, I think it would take someone under a mathematical shielding rock to figure out who would've won the Mediterranean front. Not counting Britain's 36 carriers OR the American starting figure of 22 Aircraft Carriers.
You also dismiss France and Greece like they are nothing. Greece had British support in World War 2, and France's Alpine Divisions, even after their defeat by Germany in the Battle of France, were able to easily hold up Italy's pathetic army. Greece held off Italy, and only got overrun by Hitler's Wehrmacht.
Assuming the chain of Historical events stay true, Japan would've held up Operation Barbarossa by 5 weeks. That 5 weeks would've meant Germant reach Moscow in Autumn, November. Sure, Rasputitsa, or Russian Mud and Rain which was gooey and sticky, was bad, and did hold the Germans up. But historians agree that the reason for Germany's defeat was Russia's winter. And this is true. Look at Moscow. Look at Stalingrad.
Every way you see the war, Japan would've been only as useful against the British and Americans as Japan was. Germany was the only reason the war could've lasted that long, and it was only after Germany fell over that Japan got knocked over easily.
Yes Italy would have been beaten much faster than than Japan was. After that, however, most US Fleet would be in the pacific. Even going at top speed, it would take about a few months if not years to get there to make a major impact against the Japanese and German.
Thank you for accepting this debate. good luck in future debates
1. Not acted upon the burden of proof placed upon him, simply placing weak, unsupported statements with no evidence. <
2. Not refuted my arguments. Or made any attempt to make such an attempt.
My opponent needs to remember the strength that Britain fought with. Indians, British, Free French, South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians. Pro acts like Britain's forces were all worn out and beaten after The Battle of France. Not remembering that that was just the British Expeditionary Force, and that most were saved by the Dunkirk Evacuation, including a Bernard Montgomery. The British were pros, heroes and veterans from the Great War, a force to be reckoned with, and the Germans stood a match, but most certainly not some prehistoric in thought Japanese.
The American fleet would've been vital. Even with 8 months, there is a route through the Middle East to North Africa, therefore those reinforcements would've knocked over the Axis. Also, an Anglo-American sea fleet from Britain and Noth America would ruin all chances for further German rule in the north-west of Africa.
As for mainland Britain, assuming the Battle of Britain would've been beaten by the assistance of the Japanese Zero, there were still at least 50 British regiments remaining, so defeat would've been impossible.
I wish to thank Pro for this debate, and wish him luck in the result of this and Pro's future debates.
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.