The Instigator
STALIN
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

In WWI, Russia played a more important role in the defeat of the Central Powers than France.

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...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2013 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,573 times Debate No: 41557
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

STALIN

Pro

Based on this poll:
http://www.debate.org...

I am challenging Con to this debate. Round 1 is for acceptance only. If you Con accepts then I will respond tomorrow.
imabench

Con

I accept

State your case
Debate Round No. 1
STALIN

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this debate.

In the poll, Con said: "lol at those thinking it was Russia or the US."

I assume that Con believes that just because a country left a war early or joined a war late, the role of the country is not as great. I could agree with that, however with Russia it in WWI it is much different.

I will start by providing some statistics on German, Austrian, Ottoman, and Bulgarian casualties on different fronts of the war:

Western Front: 5,603,000 [1]

Eastern Front: 7,350,000 casualties [2]

Middle Eastern Front: 1,500,000 [3]

*I am not including the Caucasian front.

So if you add the numbers destroyed on the Western Front and on the Middle Eastern front where the French fought, you will see that the numbers are about the same.

And the French did not kill all of those soldiers I stated above. British, American, and many Dutch troops fought alongside the French.

I have proved that Russia killed more enemy soldiers than France did.

Russia played an important role in saving France:

The battle of Tannesberg was a Russia defeat but it forced Germany to send men to the east to help stop the advancing Russians. Otherwise, the Schlieffen Plan might well have succeeded.

The war on the western front was largely a stalemate:

The fighting in the west was largely "Trench Warfare" where soldiers often spent time doing nothing.

I await my opponents arguments. I would appreciate if he does not refute my arguments yet and only state his in order to make this debate more equal.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://history1900s.about.com...

imabench

Con

"I assume that Con believes that just because a country left a war early or joined a war late, the role of the country is not as great"

That, and the fact that the Russians werent very good.




"And the French did not kill all of those soldiers I stated above. British, American, and many Dutch troops fought alongside the French."

1) The US didnt enter the war until WAAAAAY after the war already started, they played a minor role in the war that was fought for the longest time mostly by the French and the British
2) The Dutch only had about 38,000 troops in the war when France and England fielded close to 10 million each.


======================================================================================


Reasons why France was a more important role in the defeat of the Central Powers than Russia

1) The Battle of Merne

The Battle of Merne was the battle that halted the German advance through Belgium and the Netherlands towards Paris and caused the western front to end up in a stalemate, just 1 month after Germany started WWI. The Battle of Merne was fought by 6 French armies, a single British army, and thats it, meaning it was almost entirely the French fighting along the front at this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This was the battle that canceled Germany's desire for a quick annexation of France that plunged Germany into a two front war along the East and West. This battle also caused Germany to adopt trench warfare along the western front, which shut down every German attempt to try to overtake France, which ensured that WWI would remain a two front war for Germany to fight.

The Russians did not have a key battle or a key victory that froze German advancement into Russia. In 1915 the Central Powers annexed all of modern day Poland and pushed very far eastward into Russia, and the advance halted at a line not because Russia finally got its sh** together and fought back, but because the war on the western front with France and its allies had become too problematic for Germany to continue pushing Eastward into Russia.




2) The Battle of Tannesberg that pro cites does not exist

There is no battle of Tannesberg that took place where advancing Russians caused Germany to send reinforcements to the Eastern Front.... http://en.wikipedia.org...

There was though a Battle of TanneNberg that was much different then what pro claimed happened:

The Battle of Tannenberg was not a crucial battle to the outcome of the war, in fact the Battle of Tannenberg was fought in the very first few days of the war and resulted in the complete destruction of the Russian Second Army, and later battles caused the Russian First Army to be demolished as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So to summarize at this point: The French armies actually fought and WON crucial battles to stop the advancing german armies, causing WWI to become a two front war, whereas the Russians did not win any key battles and essentially fell flat on their a** up until they quit, amking France a more key power to the allies than Russia did





3) Russia quit.

Russia quit from WWI due to their economy collapsing, the communists taking over, and the subsequent Civil War, causing Russia to formally signed a cease fire in March of 1918. The end of the eastern front allowed Germany and the Central Powers to transfer ALL OF THE SOLDIERS on the eastern front to fight on the western front.....

This massive influx of troops on the western front due to Russia's self-destruction caused for Germany to now outnumber France and its allies on the Western Front 192 divisions to 178.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_I)#1918.E2.80.94Final_offensives





4) The Germans used more forces fighting the French and its allies then Russia and its allies

The surrender of Russia allowed Germany to move 50 army divisions into the Western Front to bring its total up to 192, which means that before the Russians surrendered, Germany was fielding 142 divisions in the Western Front against the French and its allies, and just 50 in the Eastern Front against the Russians, which clearly implies that France had a bigger part in fighting WWI then Russia did

http://en.wikipedia.org...





5) France held off the German advances despite their vast reinforcements

The German Spring offensive in 1918 resulted in the Germans taking barely any territory at all (http://en.wikipedia.org...) before they were ultimately repelled due to French and British resistance, over stretched supply lines, and a growing presence of American troops in the trenches. After the German offensive stalled, the allies initiated the Hundred Days offensive where France and its allies swiftly pushed the Germans out of France in successive victories.

The French were the ones who organized, coordinated, and led the final campaign, and they were also the ones who suffered the most casualties on the allied side

http://en.wikipedia.org...



"I await my opponents arguments. I would appreciate if he does not refute my arguments yet and only state his in order to make this debate more equal. "

Its called a 'Debate' for a reason dude
Debate Round No. 2
STALIN

Pro

I would like to thank Con for his rude response.



"That, and the fact that the Russians werent very good. "


Russian soldiers were very good. Russian commanders were a completely different story.



"The Dutch only had about 38,000 troops in the war when France and England fielded close to 10 million each."


So Con admits that the French were not fighting alone.



"The Battle of Merne was the battle that halted the German advance through Belgium and the Netherlands towards Paris and caused the western front to end up in a stalemate..."


First of all, you misspelled "Marne" several times. Second of all, anybody who ever spent an hours studying WWI would know that the first battle of the Marne halted the German advance into France so there is no reason to restate a well known fact.



"The Battle of Merne was fought by 6 French armies, a single British army..."


I agree, the French initially halted the German advance. But I would like to remind you that the first battle of the Marne was only one of Germany's many defeats and in no shape or form was it the most catastrophic defeat for the Central Powers.



"This was the battle that canceled Germany's desire for a quick annexation of France that plunged Germany into a two front war along the East and West."


The Germans never intended to annex France. The Schlieffen Plan was about defeating France quickly.



"The Russians did not have a key battle or a key victory that froze German advancement into Russia."


Clearly Con knows little about the history of WWII. Some of the largest defeats that the central powers suffered were in battles against the Russians. I will go deeper into this later.



"There is no battle of Tannesberg that took place where advancing Russians caused Germany to send reinforcements to the Eastern Front."


If Con has never heard of Tannesberg, one of the most famous battles of WWI, then Con clearly does not know much about the events of WWI.



"So to summarize at this point: The French armies actually fought and WON crucial battles to stop the advancing german armies, causing WWI to become a two front war, whereas the Russians did not win any key battles and essentially fell flat on their a** up until they quit, amking France a more key power to the allies than Russia did"


Except for the fact that Britain made up a huge portions of the forces on the Western Front. Beginning with the year 1916, the British had more troops in France than France did. You can see this in the battle of the Somme. Britain also destroyed Germany's navy.
http://en.wikipedia.org...



"Russia quit from WWI..."


Yes, Russia did leave the war early. But this does not help your case on how France played a more important role than the USSR. In WWII, Britain fought for about 6 years while the USSR only fought for 4 years. However it is easy to prove that Britain was not as important as the USSR was. Thus, this is a horrible and unsupported argument.



"The surrender of Russia...move 50 army divisions into the Western Front to bring its total up to 192...Germany was fielding 142 divisions in the Western Front...and just 50 in the Eastern Front against the Russians, which clearly implies that France had a bigger part in fighting WWI then Russia did"


At this point, Con is just ranting. A) There were only 50 divisions to move to France because of the staggering amount of forces Germany lost on the eastern front. B) Germany was not the only country fighting the allies. Clearly Con is not aware that Austria helped Germany hugely. C) Many divisions were moved to Italy, not all were moved to France.


Earlier Con said that the Germans did not send any men to the east to support Tannesburg. This is completely untrue.
"...the Russian action had diverted the Germans from their attack on France which allowed the French to counter-attack at the Marne." http://www.bbc.co.uk... Although Tannesberg was a Russian defeat, it doomed the Schlieffen Plan.


Con also earlier stated that "the Russians did not have a key battle or a key victory that froze German advancement into Russia." If this is what Con believes then he has clearly never heard of the Brusilov offensive. "It (the Brusilov Offensive) also broke the back of the Austro-Hungarian army, which suffered the majority of the casualties."
http://en.wikipedia.org...


Now in order to further prove that Russia played a more important role, I will compare battles:
At the battle of the Marne, Germany suffered: 220,000
During the Brusilov Offensive, Germany and Austria suffered: around 1,325,000

Now this is like comparing Stalingrad with El Alamein. In the previous round, Con only talked about the importance of the first battle of the Marne. I have named one of the multiple events on the eastern front that inflicted more damage on the Central powers than the Marne did. Even at the Battle of Galicia against the Russians in 1914, Austria suffered 324,000 casualties. http://en.wikipedia.org...

After the Schlieffen Plan failed, Germany's plan became to hold back the numerically superior British and French with lines of trenches and send their main forces east to crush the Russians.

Conclusion: Con was very rude. He believes that the quantity of arguments is what will win this debate. I believe that the quality of arguments will do that. A considerable portion of the time, Con just rants about how France was fighting Germany. He tries to diminish the contribution of the British fighting alongside the French who, besides single-handedly destroying the German fleet, took over the main fighting in France by 1916. Also, France never fought Austria. Russia was also a large reason that Germany lost the war. Con tries to show how Russia entered the war late and did nothing while the French were holding the Germans at the Marne. This is completely incorrect since just days after the Germans declared war, the Russians were already invading both Germany and Austria.
imabench

Con

Funny how pro accuses me of being rude and then immediately proceeds on being the bigger dick in the debate....

1) The Battle of Marne

"Second of all, anybody who ever spent an hour studying WWI would know that the first battle of the Marne halted the German advance into France so there is no reason to restate a well known fact."

Hate to break it to you Pro, but not everyone devotes an hour to learning about WWI, its the job of the debaters to bring up all relevant information to a debate and not just assume that the voters know all of this already.

"But I would like to remind you that the first battle of the Marne was only one of Germany's many defeats and in no shape or form was it the most catastrophic defeat for the Central Powers."

I never claimed that it was though.... All I said was that the battle plunged both factions into a prolonged stalemate along the Western Front that lasted for four years, and quickly ended Germany's plans for a quick overrun of France, and THAT is what ultimately caused the defeat of the Central Powers. It was this battle that caused the Central Powers to fall into a two front war, which ultimately is the reason they were defeated since they had to divide their forces into two, and this makes the French a huge player in the defeat of the Central Powers because if they didnt cause WWI to be a two front war, then Central Powers would have kicked Russia's a** even harder and could have won the war.




"Except for the fact that Britain made up a huge portions of the forces on the Western Front. "

Only later in the war did Britain field huge forces in the battlefields of Europe.... Early on in the war in the first few battles the French made up the bulk of the forces on the western front fighting the central powers, and they still played a heavy role in the middle and last parts of the war as well.






2) Russia left the War

"In WWII, Britain fought for about 6 years while the USSR only fought for 4 years. However it is easy to prove that Britain was not as important as the USSR was. Thus, this is a horrible and unsupported argument"

Thats an utterly idiotic counter to the claim that Russia leaving WWI is irrelevant and somehow supports the claim that they did more to help the allies than France..... The simple truth is that Russia got its a** kicked nonstop for 2 years along the Eastern Front, then managed to finally win a few battles and halt the advancement, only to then leave the war when its government and economy caved in on itself.... All those forces on the Eastern front were then released onto the Western front in one final offensive that was ultimately repealed by a French-led combination of forces.....

Russia's chickening out from the war almost caused the Central Powers to win, yet France and its allies managed to resist against the influx of forces and then really scale back the battle lines to the point where Germany finally surrendered.





"There were only 50 divisions to move to France because of the staggering amount of forces Germany lost on the eastern front"

They only lost 800,000 men in Russia. The main fighting on the western front happened between the Russians and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where both sides lost upwards of 6 million people (Though Russia lost close to 8 million)
http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_I)

"B) Germany was not the only country fighting the allies. Clearly Con is not aware that Austria helped Germany hugely"

I am aware that the Austro-hungarians helped Germany hugely, they were the ones kicking Russia's a** later on in the war after Germany kicked Russia's a** early on in the war.

"Although Tannesberg was a Russian defeat, it doomed the Schlieffen Plan."

The battle of Tannesberg was fought by the Germans with 166,000 men whereas the battle of Marne was fought by the Germans with a whopping 1.5 MILLION men, they didnt drain that many men from the eastern front. To claim that it severely affected how the Battle of Marne played out is completely unsupported by facts.




3) Russian battles they actually won

"It (the Brusilov Offensive) also broke the back of the Austro-Hungarian army, which suffered the majority of the casualties.""

And it only took Russia two years to finally win an important battle.....




"At the battle of the Marne, Germany suffered: 220,000... During the Brusilov Offensive, Germany and Austria suffered: around 1,325,000... Now this is like comparing Stalingrad with El Alamein"

Youre overlooking the fact that the reason the number of casualties in the Battle of Marne is lower is because the Battle of Marne resulted in both sides adopting trench warfare all along the western front, which deadlocked he advance from the Central Powers.

In fact in the battle of Marne, both sides used 1 to 1.5 million men whereas in the Brusilov Offensive both sides had round 580,000 men, about 1/2 to 1/3rd the size of the forces involved in the Battle of Marne.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now Marne is starting to look like the Stalingrad while Brusilov looks like El-Alamein eh?

Youre battle of Galicia also used less troops then those involved in the Battle of the Marne too.





"After the Schlieffen Plan failed, Germany's plan became to hold back the numerically superior British and French with lines of trenches and send their main forces east to crush the Russians. "

And thats exactly what happened since the Russians got hammered to the point where their government and their economy collapsed, causing them to basically surrender.




Extend all dropped arguments about how the French and its allies repelled the Germans after the Russians surrendered, about how the Russians lost battle after battle in the first two years of the war when the French actually fought well, about how Russias surrender almost would have let the central powers win the war had France and its allies fallen under the bigger forces, etc etc

Debate Round No. 3
STALIN

Pro

Major battles in which the French took part in:
First Battle of Ypres (1914) German losses: 134,000
Battle of Yser (1914) German losses: 75,000
Battle of the Frontiers (1914) German losses: 200,000
First Battle of the Marne (1914) German losses: 220,000
Second Battle of Champagne (1915) German losses: 100,000
Battle of Verdun (1916) German losses: 300,000
Battle of the Somme (1916) German losses: 450,000
Battle of Arras (1917) German losses: 125,000
Nivelle Offensive (1917) German losses: 187,000
Third Battle of Ypres (1917) German losses: 300,000
Battle of Passchendaele (1917) German losses: 300,000
Hundred Days Offensive (1918) German losses: around a million
All of these major battles add up to around 3 million casualties for the Germans. And in all of these battles, France made up about half of the total forces used. The rest were British, Dutch, American, Australian, Canadian, etc.

Major Russian Battles:
*I don't include Tannesberg because we both already know the casualties there.
Siege of Przemysl (1914-1915) Austrian losses: 250,000
Battle of Lodz (1914) German losses: 160,000
Battle of Galicia (1914) Austrian losses: 324,000
Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive (1915) German/Austrian Casualties: 90,000
Brusilov Offensive (1916) German/Austrian Casualties: 1,325,000
All of these major battles add up to some 2 million.
And French forces made up only about half of the total forces on the western front. So Germany suffered 1.5 million casualties fighting the French while Germany and Austria suffered around 2 million fighting the Russians.

The Middle Eastern Theate:

This is a place which Russia, undoubtedly played a far greater role than France. In the Middle East, there were 2.5 million British soldiers, around a million Russian soldiers, and only a few hundred thousand French soldiers. During the Gallipoli Campaign there were 500,000 British troops and only 80,000 French troops. Gallipoli was the most important battle of the Middle Eastern Theater. http://en.wikipedia.org...

All of these major battles add up to some 2 million casualties for Austria and Germany in the east.

Quote: "In July [1916] there were 112 German divisions on the Western Front and 52 divisions in Russia and in November there were 121 divisions in the west and 76 divisions in the east."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Although France was still fighting more German troops than Russia was, Russia was also fighting Austria.

"Only later in the war did Britain field huge forces in the battlefields of Europe..."

However it was still a considerable portion. Like I stated earlier, Britain provided more troops in 1916 than France did. And that does not include the American troops who helped in the war.

OK clearly Pro doesn't understand: this debate is not about who was in the war for the longest period of time. Its about who did the most to defeat the Central Powers. That's why saying that Russia left early is not an argument for this debate.
In WWII, Russia joined late. Britain fought throughout the war. However Russia's contribution was still greater. So clearly the time a country fought for explains nothing in this debate.

"They only lost 800,000 men in Russia. The main fighting on the western front happened between the Russians and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where both sides lost upwards of 6 million people (Though Russia lost close to 8 million)"

The main fighting in the east was not just between Austria and Russia, but also between Germany and Russia. Like I said earlier, Germany's plan was to hold the French and British back with trenches and send whatever they could spare to help Austria defeat Russia.
"In July [1916] there were 112 German divisions on the Western Front and 52 divisions in Russia and in November there were 121 divisions in the west and 76 divisions in the east."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"I am aware that the Austro-hungarians helped Germany hugely, they were the ones kicking Russia's a** later on in the war after Germany kicked Russia's a** early on in the war. "

Actually they were the ones who would have been defeated had it not been for German assistance in the east. The Austrian army was no match for the Russian army.

"... the battle of Marne was fought by the Germans with a whopping 1.5 MILLION men..."

However at the Marne, Germany only lost some 200,000 men out of that "whopping 1.5 million".

Con talks about the Brusilov Offensive: "And it only took Russia two years to finally win an important battle....."

I explained in both in the previous round and in the beginning of this round how that is untrue.

"In fact in the battle of Marne, both sides used 1 to 1.5 million men whereas in the Brusilov Offensive both sides had round 580,000 men, about 1/2 to 1/3rd the size of the forces involved in the Battle of Marne."

In the Brusilov offensive both sides only had around 580,000 men? Then how was it that Germany/Austria lost 1.3 million men? Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that 1.3 million men is a larger number than what Con stated.

"Youre battle of Galicia also used less troops then those involved in the Battle of the Marne too."

That's not what matters. What matters is the number of Germans/Austrians who died. And that number was higher than the number of men who died fighting at the Marne.

Conclusion: Clearly the Russians were responsible for the defeat of more enemy soldiers than France was. While Russia was fighting all alone on a front three times the length of the front France was fighting on, France had help from Britain and the United States. Russia defeated Austria while France never fought a battle against Austria. Russia was already invading both Germany and Austria while France was struggling to stop Germany front moving another mile toward Paris. Con tries to make it look as if France was fighting all alone against Germany. Well the fact is that Britain did more than France in WWI.
imabench

Con

"Major Russian Battles: *I don't include Tannesberg because we both already know the casualties there."

And also because Russia got their a** kicked in that one





"During the Gallipoli Campaign there were 500,000 British troops and only 80,000 French troops. Gallipoli was the most important battle of the Middle Eastern Theater"

Well sounds like an argument for why the British played the most important role in WWI, nor Russia or France.




"this debate is not about who was in the war for the longest period of time. Its about who did the most to defeat the Central Powers"

Yeah, and usually the nation that stays in the war longer tends to be the one that does the most to defeat the other side, as was the case in WWII




"That's why saying that Russia left early is not an argument for this debate."

Except it is, you just claim it isnt because it completely defeats your argument.




"In July [1916] there were 112 German divisions on the Western Front and 52 divisions in Russia and in November there were 121 divisions in the west and 76 divisions in the east"

There were more troops fighting on the western Front in the battlefields of France then there were fighting in the a** whippings in Russia, got it.




"Con talks about the Brusilov Offensive: "And it only took Russia two years to finally win an important battle....." I explained in both in the previous round and in the beginning of this round how that is untrue."

Losing badly to the Germans in the outbreak of the war at the Battle of Tannenberg doesnt count as a key victory for Russia though.





"While Russia was fighting all alone on a front three times the length of the front France was fighting on, France had help from Britain and the United States"

Russia wasnt fighting alone though, France and its allies were on the other side of the theater keeping a majority of Germany's troops at bay which prevented them from going into Russia. This allowed Russia to go toe to toe with just Austria-Hungary, and they still managed to lose a sh**load of territory, have their economy and government implode, and almost caused the Central Powers to win WWI had France and its allies not managed to hold off the millions of reinforcements Germany now had thanks to Russia surrendering.



=========================================================================================



Numbers only go so far in demonstrating who played a bigger part in a war. There are strategic elements and characteristics of the war that also come into play that are just as important as stats like casualties and wins

- France single handedly managed to bring a halt to the German invasion of France at the Battle of Marne in the initial outbreak of WWI
- Russia failed spectacularly to prevent the Germans and Austrians from pouring into Russia at the Battle of Tannenberg
- France managed to regain all of its territory before Germany signed an armistice
- Russia lost territory so quick that it caused their economy and government to fail and caused them to surrender.
- France and its allies managed to absorb the attack by Germany launched with the forces from the Eastern Front and then push them back

At the very least, France and Russia played equal roles in the defeat of the Central Powers. It seems that strategically though, France played a much more vital role in causing there to be a two front war compared to Russia, who got beat hard and eventually surrendered to make it a one front war that France and its allies still managed to win in the end.
Debate Round No. 4
STALIN

Pro

I thank Con for his response.



"And also because Russia got their a** kicked in that one"


Yes you have said that like 10-20 times in this debate already.



"Well sounds like an argument for why the British played the most important role in WWI, nor Russia or France."


I was simply showing how insignificant France was in the Middle East compared to other countries.



"Yeah, and usually the nation that stays in the war longer tends to be the one that does the most to defeat the other side, as was the case in WWII."


Really? Both the USSR and the United States entered WWII two years later than Britain and France and ended up playing the two most important roles.



"There were more troops fighting on the western Front in the battlefields of France then there were fighting in the a** whippings in Russia, got it."


Yes there were more German troops on the western front fighting France and Britain than there were on the eastern front. I do not deny this. However throughout the previous rounds, I have argued that Russia also played huge roles in defeating Austria and the Ottoman Empire and like I said earlier, France never did anything to defeat Austria.



"Losing badly to the Germans in the outbreak of the war at the Battle of Tannenberg doesnt count as a key victory for Russia though."


Con used this argument to respond to my argument that the Brusilov Offensive was very important. Why use a battle that took place long before the Brusilov Offensive in order to make the Brusilov Offensive look unimportant. And I explained in the previous round that there were other Russian victories that took place even before the Brusilov Offensive.



"Russia wasnt fighting alone though, France and its allies were on the other side of the theater keeping a majority of Germany's troops at bay which prevented them from going into Russia. This allowed Russia to go toe to toe with just Austria-Hungary, and they still managed to lose a sh**load of territory..."


Yes, I understand that. My point was that while France had allies fight alongside the French army and prevent Germany from defeating France, Russia had nobody. Also, I'm not sure if Con is aware of this but France received huge amounts of supplies from both Britain and the United States. Russia on the other hand was always low on supplies. The only reason that Russia lost so much territory in WWI was largely due to Germany. Austria would most likely never have been able to successfully invade Russia had it not been for Germany so clearly Russia was not going "toe to toe" with just Austria, but with Germany as well.



"Numbers only go so far in demonstrating who played a bigger part in a war."


Countries are usually defeated in wars when they lose their armies in combat.



"There are strategic elements and characteristics of the war that also come into play that are just as important as stats like casualties and wins"


Stats show who did more to actually defeat the Central Powers.



"France single handedly managed to bring a halt to the German invasion of France at the Battle of Marne in the initial outbreak of WWI"


Except for the fact that if Britain have not been fighting with France, France would most likely have lost even if Germany was forced to fight on two fronts. Sure they may have been able to halt Germany at the Marne but there were plenty more German reinforcements who came to fight France later on in the war. Had it not been for Britain, France would undoubtedly have been outnumbered and sooner or later, would have been defeated by the superior German army.



"Russia failed spectacularly to prevent the Germans and Austrians from pouring into Russia at the Battle of Tannenberg"


Clearly Con does not understand what Tannesberg was about. Tannesberg was not about Russia trying to prevent Germany from pouring into Russia. It was about Germany trying to prevent Russia pouring into Germany. Also, Austria took no part in the battle.[1] That's another mistake Con made in his thinking.



"France managed to regain all of its territory before Germany signed an armistice"


I don't understand how that is an argument. France managed to regain its territory. Other countries also managed to gain territory from the war. However I cannot understand what is so strategic about regaining land. Also, France would never have regained any of that territory had it not been for Russia. As a matter of fact, France would most likely have lost all its territory.



"Russia lost territory so quick that it caused their economy and government to fail and caused them to surrender."


Con says that Russia lost territory "so quickly" but he does not show how quickly Russia lost it. He doesn't even provide sources to support this. This map bellow shows the territory that Germany took altogether. I would also like to point out that much of the Ukraine was taken by Germany when the treaty with Russia was already signed. Much of this territory was basically given to Germany for free. And unless Con doesn't notice, Germany does not come anywhere near to Moscow. That states that Con's arguments about how Germany took an overwhelming amount of territory from Russia is largely exaggerated. Russia was forced to give the Ottomans that land in the south in the treaty. The Ottomans never took any of it.






"France and its allies managed to absorb the attack by Germany launched with the forces from the Eastern Front and then push them back"

We know. And that was due largely to other countries.



"At the very least, France and Russia played equal roles in the defeat of the Central Powers."


I see Con is no longer as confident in his position.



"It seems that strategically though, France played a much more vital role in causing there to be a two front war compared to Russia"

The two front war was only possible because of Russia. Russia made up 1 front. France/OTHER COUNTRIES made up another. Therefor Russia did more strategically. Russia made up a front three the size western front.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

imabench

Con

"I have argued that Russia also played huge roles in defeating Austria and the Ottoman Empire and like I said earlier, France never did anything to defeat Austria."

1) Russia didnt play a huge role in defeating the Ottoman Empire, that was the British
2) Russia only managed to 'defeat' Austria after 2 years into the war after they lost a massive amount of territory beforehand, they didnt bring them to a swift stalemate like France did to Germany in France.




"Why use a battle that took place long before the Brusilov Offensive in order to make the Brusilov Offensive look unimportant."


Because if France didnt win a single battle until 2 years into the war Like Russia did, then the Central Powers would have easily won the war since Russia fell on its a** either way.





"My point was that while France had allies fight alongside the French army and prevent Germany from defeating France, Russia had nobody"

And your point is faulty because Russia WAS helped by France in its allies since they were the ones who kept more then half of German forces out of Russia. You act like Russia was on its own in WWI because you are ignoring the fact that there was an entirely different front being waged on the other side of Europe that caused the Central Powers to split their forces into two..... Even though that was still enough manpower to bring Russia to its knees.





"if Britain have not been fighting with France, France would most likely have lost even if Germany was forced to fight on two fronts."

True. Without Britain, France would likely have fallen and the Central Powers would have won.....
But if they lost only Russia, France would NOT have fallen... And I know that because that is exactly what happened, Russia surrendered in the war and left france and its allies on their own, yet they still won.





"Sure they may have been able to halt Germany at the Marne but there were plenty more German reinforcements who came to fight France later on in the war. "

And the reason that happened was because Russia surrendered after getting its a** whipped.





"Tannesberg was not about Russia trying to prevent Germany from pouring into Russia. It was about Germany trying to prevent Russia pouring into Germany. "

What the f*ck ever, the point is they still lost badly and left the door open for Germany and Austria to pour into Russia whereas France actually managed to put up a fight.





Fact: France managed to regain all of its territory before Germany signed an armistice
Con: "I don't understand how that is an argument"

France and its allies led the charge to purge the Germans out of France, and they used that momentum to ultimately bring an end to WWI with a surrender from the Central Powers. Russia lost even more territory than France did and because they couldnt take any of it back they actually had to surrender, nearly causing the Central Powers to win the war.






"However I cannot understand what is so strategic about regaining land"

Well clearly you dont know a single thing about history then.




"Also, France would never have regained any of that territory had it not been for Russia"

They did regain all of it without Russia though.... Thats how the war ended remember?





================================================================================================


Conclusion:

Argument Points:

The simple fact is both sides cdid ontribute tremendously to the outcome of WWI, but there are many key differences between how both sides performed and what happened to them in the war:

- France managed to bring the German invasion of France to a quick halt and forcing the western front into a stalemate
- Russia suffered loss after loss for years before finally winning a battle, and the still surrendered in the end anyways.
- France forced a bloody stalemate early on in the western front and kept more Germans out of Russia then Russia kept out of Franc

And the biggest difference of all: When Russia surrendered, Germany almost overwhelmed France and its allies with reinforcements but were again quickly stopped by French and British forces, effectively ending any hojpes for the Central powers to win WWI. This means that Russia was expendable towards the end.

Had France been the one who surrendered then Russia would have faced the wrath of the German reinforcements, meaning Russia would also likely have fallen since their country imploded under half of those forces in their territory anyways.

No matter how you look at it, Russia at the most played an equal role to defeating the central powers as France did. They did not play a greater role though.



Conduct Points:

While both sides did treat each other equally sh**ty, Pro was the one who tried to blackmail others into voting for him on this debate by threatening to vote against people in other debates.... Bad language is one thing, but blackmail is a much mroe massive violation of conduct.

Also guys FYI: If Stalin challenges you to a debate, do yourself a favor and dont accept. He will resort to calling you a f****t and act like a complete child to you outside the debate just because you offended his precious mother Russia, which can lick my boot for all I care.



Source points:

Point of sources is to substantiate arguments, and we both did that to a reasonable degree.



Grammer points:

We both misspelled some stuff here and there, but overall all the arguments were readable.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
I love how you resorted to blackmail to get votes on this debate and I STILL won by a landslide XD
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
Oh Look Stalin, this was the second time where I completely kicked your a**....
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Yes they were lol, duh.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Guardian, those other votes arent votebombs and counter-votebombing votes is illegal.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Imabench, you should vote on this:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by thisisbob 3 years ago
thisisbob
So what if revolutions happened?
Posted by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
This should be an interesting debate. I hope no one forgets that the multiple revolutions happened in Russia during the course of World War I.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Gs325jcbd 3 years ago
Gs325jcbd
STALINimabenchTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: this was difficult. Both gave good points.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
STALINimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: CON wins this one by a fairly wide margin. Conduct to pro because con, as always, trolled. Even though it's awesome how he did it.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
STALINimabenchTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In the novel All Quiet On The Western Front, when rumor has it that their unit is going to be transferred to the eastern front, the character Tjaden remarks "It's not much of a war over there". The resolution is ridiculous and I will debate pro on it any time. Con proved that France was much more instrumental in the German defeat than Russia. The best argument was what Con pointed out in R3. The German plan was to overrun France quickly and then fight Russia. The fact that the French managed to stall them and yet they still managed to defeat Russia shows how absurd Pros position is. It wasn't an issue in the debate but Pros assertion that Russian soldiers were "quite good" is absurd. They were poorly trained and armed and there are many accounts of soldiers going into combat without weapons.
Vote Placed by ej3467273 3 years ago
ej3467273
STALINimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more convincing arguments. Though conduct was complete crap on both sides, con argued successfully that France played a bigger role.