The Instigator
Tyler1
Pro (for)
The Contender
Averyg
Con (against)

Nazi Germany Could Have Defeated the Allies on Technology and Strategy Alone

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Tyler1 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 368 times Debate No: 98808
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Tyler1

Pro

Hello, and thank you to whoever does this debate with me. As you know, we will be arguing about if Nazi Germany could have defeated the Allies with technology and strategy alone. I will slightly alter the history with this topic. This will make the war a different scenario but lets see where this all goes. The alteration will be that Adolf Hitler gave the generals the freedom to strategize and attack without Hitlers interference. Lets begin.

I'll start with the technological capabilities that the Nazis had. First, I'll start with tanks. Germany was, and still is known for its very great armored vehicles, specifically, the Panzers. The Panzer, while starting out as essentially an armored car, grew to create some of the most lethal tanks on the battlefield. The reason for these tanks was to counter the Russians better tanks, so I will skip to the Panzer lV. The Panzer Four was the first Panzer tank that possessed the ability to destroy Russian armor. Its armor had a maximum thickness of 20 millimeters and was vertical, rather then sloped, as the Soviets did. While the Panzer Four lacked the greatest armor, its gun was the only tank mounted gun that could take out a T34, which at the time was giving the Germans nightmares.

Then came the Panzer Five. This tank was much more suited for T34 hunting then number Four. This tank had a 75 millimeter main gun and much beefier armor that could be as thick as 80 millimeters. I also don't think I need to go into a huge amount of detail in terms of the Tiger One and Tiger Two. There is a true story about an SS tank crew that was able fight off 50 Russian tanks. They used their Tiger One to destroy 22 of the tanks, with the rest retreating, and only minor damage to the Tiger. I'll conclude by stating that there were many other amazing feats on the Western Front.
Averyg

Con

While Germany was very strong during WWII and very advanced in technology, I don't think they would have have won the war on technology alone. The Axis alliance was very strong, don't get me wrong. The problem is Germany's other allies weren't very technologically advanced. A majority of the countries against Nazi Germany, were technologically advanced. Including The U.S, Great Britain, and Russia. I myself think that the technology of these three countries alone would be able to defeat the technology of just one major country along with a few other minor countries.
Debate Round No. 1
Tyler1

Pro

What about in terms of aircraft. The Germans could have one with that. Given, they did never make an entirely succsseful long range bomber, the fighters and dive bombers were very successful. The Nazis could have one the air war using what they had. The fighters were of good quality and quantity. If you were to pit the English plane, lets say a better quality Spitfire or a Hurricane, against the Luftwaffes BF-110 or BF-109, the BF's would still win by a long shot. The fighters were well armored and in terms of firepower, the Luftwaffe wins. The BF's used heavy machine guns that would essentially fire cannon rounds. If my mind is correct, the rounds would tear apart the hull of British aircraft. The dive bombers were also fantastic weapons. They would always be used to support the ground troops. Pilots were also much better trained then the British. The only thing the British excelled in for technology was Naval Forces and maybe radar.

The Germans also had some incredible generals. I personally believe the better ones were Rommel, Manstein, and Guedarian. Manstein orchestrated the attack in France. Rommel was well known and admired by German and English soldiers. Guedarian was also the master of tank warfare. There were many others of course, but they were the best of the best. I also should mention Model. While he was a very fanatical Nazi, known as Hitlers Fireman because he was always sent to save the Reich from defeat, he was an expert in defense.
Averyg

Con

I can see where Nazi Germany could overpower any of the countries with their aircraft, especially the British who weren't very well trained. But the British still technically won the air battle didn't they? During the battle of Britain the Luftwaffe lost 2 planes for every 1 the Royal Air Force lost. The battle of Britain wasn't just a short skirmish that took place in the air either. It was a full on air battle between the RAF and the Luftwaffe that lasted for 3 months. And at the end of that long 3 month battle it was clear who won. The British Royal Air Force. I can see how the German Luftwaffe is very dangerous and deadly. But they took a huge loss after the battle of Britain, losses that they wouldn't be able to overcome.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by bsimpson 1 year ago
bsimpson
I agree the war was very winnable for Germany. But Hitler's belief in his own infallibility led to him overrule his much more capable generals. Which prevented him from achieving victory. This problem is particularly glaring when looking at the invasion of the Soviet Union. Germany also simply bit off more than it could chew when it invaded the Soviet Union before finishing off Great Britain.
Posted by Tyler1 1 year ago
Tyler1
First, to clarify your statement, Some_Confused_Kid, it depends on your opinion. However, most people I talk to now say World War Two was caused by the Treaty of Versailles, which forced Germany to give up large amounts of land and almost their entire army and their entire navy. This hit the Germans hard which I believe forced them to retaliate in a way.
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
The Nazis could have easily won WWII, if they didn't make silly mistakes. I'll name some right now

1) Battle for Britain- this massive air battle between the German Luftwaffe and the RAF of GB resulted in the Luftwaffe being totally destroyed. This allowed the Allies to directly bomb the Germans, without having the headache of enemy aircraft. This bombing eventually resulted in the destruction of German tanks and other hey posts.

2) D-Day- While the allies were invading Normandy, there were Panzer divisions ready just in case the allies attacked. They never got there because one of Hitler's officers was afraid to wake Hitler up because he was sleeping. What this could have done was prevent the Allied invasion of France and stop them from coming inland.

3) Germans valued Quality over Quantity- The PRO side explains the Panzer tanks and their strong qualities. The fatal flaw was that production took much longer than say the Sherman tanks or T34 tank. In the end, the never ending onslaught of Allied tanks and aircraft ended the Panzers.

4) Battle of Stalingrad- The Germans were a day away from destroying the Soviet production of their tanks in Stalingrad. The Soviet resistance was a day away from being crushed forever and never being a threat to the Northern Front. The Germans however decided to retreat and doomed their fate, as the Soviets reached the Rhine later on.

5) Japanese Attack of Pearl Harbor- This was by far the largest mistake made by the the Axis Powers. They thought that they could once and for all destroy the Aircraft Carriers stationed at Pearl Harbor to prevent The Americans from ever being a threat at sea against Japan. This totally backfired as all the aircraft carriers weren't at port and instead were training.

The Germans had a good chance of winning, they just weren't lucky/smart.
Posted by Some_Confused_Kid 1 year ago
Some_Confused_Kid
Thats were I agree with you Tyler1. But I think the main reason why Germany lost because of its strategical blunder mainly I am rusty on WW Two history was caused by Adolf Hitler?
Posted by Tyler1 1 year ago
Tyler1
Thats true. But the Germans could have still defeated the Russians, using what they had. Moscow would have fallen if the Germans kept going before moving South.
Posted by Some_Confused_Kid 1 year ago
Some_Confused_Kid
Blitzkreig can only work for so long you know.
Posted by Tyler1 1 year ago
Tyler1
Evanjfarrar, I am explaining why the Panzer was superior to most other tanks at the time. It takes much more then just the vehicle itself to win the war. Tactics the Panzers used to defeat the opponent also was critical. I should probably have provided that information.
Posted by evanjfarrar 1 year ago
evanjfarrar
So, because Panzers existed, the Nazis could have won? I'm confused about how you are supporting the resolution.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.