The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

If the Battle of Moscow was won by Hitler, the Second World War would've been won by Germany

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 676 times Debate No: 48833
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




On December 5th 1941, 2 days before Pearl Harbor, The Wehrmacht attempts to take Moscow and end Communism in the Far East. But the attack fails: Stalin's Katyusha rockets, rallied soldiers and Georgi Zhukov's pincer movement of the Wehrmacht saves Moscow.

My point in summoning a challenger is to question him/her if the Germans had taken Moscow, which in advance means Stalin's surrender, would they have won WW2? With still 1 million battle hardened soldiers, Hitler would've almost certainly turned his troops all on Britain, and finished Churchill off. With America still 2 days from entering the war, Roosevelt would not have thought of saving a drowning man, and therefore allowed a weak Britain to be devoured by the German war machine.


1st there is no reason to expect that the defeat at Moscow would have meant the surrender of Stalin. How ever, it would have meant almost certainly Defeat for Russia as what was left of the Soviet forces would have been pushed east and unable to do anything more than mount stubborn resistance. Though Hitler may have had a remaining 1 million Troops, there is the pesky issue of HOLDING the territory he has gained. This event would not have made a difference in the United states entering the War. The attack on pearl harbor was already set into motion and with it Hitler's Germany as destined to goto War with the United states.

Another major mistake you are making is selling the British Short. The war with England was Far...FAR...FAR from a one sided fight. Luftwaffe was taking absolutely obscene losses over England and Britain was Throwing everything including the Pots and pans ( at them :p Winston Churchill called it the Wizards war and the British utilization of Radar gave England a decided defensive advantage. The united states was an industrial juggernaut. An unreachable fortress nation with seemingly unlimited resources in its war machine. Germany did not even have Long range bombers in production that where capable of striking the U.S.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for this explanation, but looking back at the capital cities Hitler took before Barbarossa, it's safe to say Stalin would've surrendered. Hitler could've asked the Japanese, who seeing Stalin's weakness, would've probably attacked. Look at the facts: France surrendered shortly after losing Paris, Poland after Warsaw and in 1945 Germany after Berlin. Since Moscow can easily be described as the Russian equivalent of Berlin, that proves Russia probably would've surrendered.

As for Great Britain, the Home Guard was a joke. Men and women either reaching or during retirement were called in in an attempt to fight an army who had taken Luxembourg, The Hague, Oslo, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Brussels, Warsaw and Paris. So you, Con, are underrating the superiority of the Wehrmacht. As for aviation warfare, the Germans had Stukas which could've bombed British air bases, making the fancy Spitfires and Hurricanes useless. As for radar, I'll give Britain that one. There is nothing I could possibly say about radar.

And Britain's lack of food and black outs also were a problem. Men and women, though uncommon, got killed by their own people as a result of lack of light and vision.

Food shortages in Britain were a massive problem. With America offering little to no help at all against the U-Boats, Britain relied on Canada, whose navy was weaker than any other. Mind you, barely any food was left, so hunger could've been another reason as to why the British could've surrendered to the Germans.

Finally, Britain's real army. The Battle of Dunkirk was successful for both sides, but 200,000 British and French soldiers died at Dunkirk protecting the evacuation. So the Germans had beaten then once. What makes you think Britain could not lose again? It had only been a year and a half.

As for holding the territories Hitler gained, you're basing that accusation on the fact you believe Hitler didn't care about holding strongpoints. It sounds like you think they would've offered Moscow back to Stalin! No, Hitler would've overloaded defences on Moscow, as well as the French Coast and all other major cities and towns.

With that, I hand back to Con.


The true beginning of the end for Germany was not their defeat in Russia alone, but additionally their defeat in North Africa and Loss of the CRITICAL Libyan oil fields. Germany for the rest of the war would experience fuel shortages. The loss for Germany came from all sides. In Russia, Hitler must delegate critical resources to defending territory, With the Axis loss in North Africa and the subsequent defeat of Italy and over throw of Mussolini... the would be ceaser. The Third Reich's fate was sealed.

You are grossly over praising the Stuka, it was a great plane for its time but by the early 1940s it was well past its prime. By comparison to any of the Fighters that would be flying defence, the Stuka was slow and cumbersome.
Compare for your self.

The Stuka's short operational range was just one problem. It was designed to be used as a Ground Attack aircraft which supported the German Blitzkrieg on the ground. Think of it as the earliest incarnation of the A.10 Wrath hog. It was great so long as it had a clear air picture to operate it and the Germans rapidly lost air superiority, in large part due to Hitler's insistence on fighting a losing air war over Britain.

Further the Spitfires where designed to be Modular where as German planes struggled with continuous production, the British literally salvaged every aircraft they could often reusing wings and refurbishing Engines which was both reliable and incredibly efficient use of resources. Luftwaffe was quickly out matched industrially and technically. At the same time as this was going on, Germany was losing the Uboat war...

The British and Americans both had developed sophisticated methods of hunting and destroying U boats which in not long at all... ended the Kreigsmarine and choke hold on supply lines from the United States. The lack of food in the British empire was quickly sured up, but above all the British and Americans had free reign in the Atlantic once the wolf pack lost its ability to operate effectively. Despite the skill and technical prowess of British and Americans, I will concede that a very large part of their ability to defeat the German Uboats was the capture of the German Enigma Machine.

The long story short is simply that the Third Reich was out matched, lacking the ability to even touch the American Industrial machine. As Germany suffered greater and greater losses to its industry its war machine became impossible to continuously supply and that trend started with the Loss of the Libyan oil fields.
Debate Round No. 2


It is true that the Libyan oil fields were lost, but I'd like to point out 2 things:
1. The Libyan oil fields were Italian territory: Rommel was sent to rescue them. Common mistake.
2. The Germans did not start struggling to win battles until the Battle of Moscow, DURING OPERATION BARBAROSSA.

As well, you forget that the BF-109 was rated as the plane to have killed most opponents, proving it's stability and control was much better than that of the Spitfire.

As this is last round, that will be the rebuttal I shall make. This means Con may make 2 rebuttals and then must summarise his entire beliefs of why the Battle of Moscow would not have meant the Allies' loss.

I'd like to thank Con for this debate and wish him luck in this and future debates. Vote Pro!


The issue you have been avoiding all argument is the Industrial superiority of the United states. Your original contention is that victory against the soviets would have lead to an ultimate victory over the allies, but I contend that at best it would have only dragged the war out as it would have given Hitler more sources to misuse in the final days of the war. The air war over German was a war of Industrial attrition... Once the United states committed to total war Germany never- even at its peak~ Had the Industrial capacity that the United states had when it was just starting to hit its stride. It at the time was a fortress of a nation and it had absolute command of the seas between it and both of its enemies after the battle of Midway and coral sea. Germany Literally had no chance of Defeating the United states, And the battle of Britain was the critical turning point against the British... Germany simply could not replace its air power fast enough nor could it easily replace the pilots it was losing. the advancements in technology out paced Germany. The defeat of the Soviets would not have changed the fact that the Wolf pack was broken... the Uboats lost their effectiveness and with it the German's ability to impede a supply line form the Industrial fortress that is the United states to England. They could not stop the constant influx of Materials... planes.. ammo and rations from the U.S. and a few extra tanks in the Baltic area wasn't going to change that.

For Nazi Germany to have won the war, the United states needed to stay out of the war for another year... maybe two while German jet propulsion was worked on and put into mass production. The extra 2 years may also have been enough for Germany to make significant advancements in its Nuclear bomb project ( but in truth they where incredibly far behind). Germany would have needed to successfully secure its oil supplies from Allied bombing and capture, while at the same time having found a way to regain effective ability to strangle supply lines to Britain. Alot of things would have had to go very differently for the Axis powers and the defeat of the Soviets alone simply would not have made those changes.

How ever. The soviets where instrumental in the war effort as it actually happened and by tieing up the resources of the third Reich in the East made the allied pressure in the west far more manageable. And far less bloody for the Untied states and Britain. The defeat of the soviets may have changed the way the war ended, perhaps in treaty rather than in total defeat for Germany. But no matter how many extra men and extra tanks Germany had to draw out the war. It would not have made a difference, not the way everything else really happened.

Thanks for the debate, look forward to getting into a few more with you in the future.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove that the capture of Moscow would have resulted in the surrender of the USSR. Con shows that with the US industry on the side of the allies, Germany would have been unable to win. Arguments go to Con and sources go to Con as well. He showed that the capture of Moscow alone would not have won the war.