Nazi Germany could have won
Debate Rounds (3)
World War 2 would've been lost had the Nazis not invaded the Soviet Union anyway.
Stalin had said, while Hitler was planning Barbarossa, that the Soviets would try and delay the Eastern Front for two years.
This means that Stalin was delaying the Eastern Front for one of two reasons:
1. Preparation of defence, proving Hitler was planning on invasion from the outset of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact.
2. Planning to invade Germany, using propaganda as cover to expand his Soviet empire.
Also, the Japanese had, by the time of the Battle of Moscow, been ready to attack the USA.
This attack, and thus Hitler's declaration of war, mean that Americans could've easily landed in the West of North Africa, helped Britain sweep North Africa clear of Rommel and ended the war earlier in Italy, then a cross-channel invasion of Occupied France.
Stalin also ignored the supposed readying of Nazi troops pre-Barbarossa for two reasons:
1. His troops were ill-equipped for the battle (they lost 125,000 men in their battle for Finland)
2. He was offering Hitler a chance to call off the invasion, thus stopping his hating of war on two fronts and continuation of the Nazi-Societ non-aggression pact.
Hitler also, wrongingly, deluded himself that one front, the Western/British front, had been won. So attacking Russia wasn't the worst idea.
It wasn't until 1943 that the airborne landings occurred during operation market garden, and the Americans would have taken tremendous casualties, because the Germans would have had more time to dig in and fortify anti-aircraft positions. The campaigns in north Africa would not have been lost had the Germans gained the allocated tanks from the eastern front, and remember, the quality and attributes of German armour were superior to that of the mainly British counterparts. And let's not forgot the "desert fox". With his expertise the extra tanks would have been invaluable in all operations. Let's face it, would you like to be on the business end of a panther? Or a tiger? Or a hetzer? No, of course not, especially remembering you would be in a cruiser tank or a Matilda. So yeah, the German armour was superior in virtually all ways.
Anyways, let's be hypothetical and say that with the extra aircraft from the eastern front, the Germans had won the battle of Britain, game over for the allies. Now once the Soviets had invaded germany, they would meet superior soldiers and vehicles, a dug in defence, and the tenacity of a cornered raccoon. Why can I hypothosize this? Because Hitler would have anticipated it and planned a counterattack. Although it is speculated that Hitler suffered from schizophrenia along with drug and metal poisoning, he was a military genius and anyone who say otherwise must be incredibly prejudiced or Jewish. The allied war machine won ww2 only because it could sustain and replace massive casualties and mass produce like there was no tomorrow.
1. He has made assumptions, with no sources used, so we don't know how many resources the Nazis lost due to Barbarossa.
2. Overrating the "Superior" German forces, such as when Con said how if the Soviets would have invaded Germany, they would've been smashed.
There's no evidence, also, to suggest that Britain would have lost: Goering had lost once already, the British used radar, a fact the Germans never realised. The convoys were supplying Britain enough and the RAF pilots were much braver and experienced than the Luftwaffe's.
Montgomery flails Rommel, the Churchills are WELL better than the Panzers, I to IV. The Tigers were mostly on the Eastern Front, and Panthers and Elefant tanks were also the same: Eastern Front material.
The British Empire and North America were supplying them with materials, whereas Germany had two useless allies who were all doing their own things to expand their empires. The Allies worked together; the Axis also did, but they worked for their respective goals. The Allies worked for one goal: world peace. The Adis were too selfish, which is one of the reasons why they didn't win.
You said the Americans suffered heavy casualties. Would anyone outside of this debate, observing, notice the differences between casualties? By June 1944, the Americans had 11 million men mobilized. The Germans, however, could not simply replace lost soldiers, so much that by December 1944 Hitler Youth troops began entering battles. America had advantages: no one could bomb them, their country was miles away. Germany, on the other hand, was bombed into submission. No country could've survived such bombings and still won a war, unless you were Britain.
Hitler also underestimated North Africa; they failed to realize that the importance of the continent's result would've determined the war: The Americans would've arrived from the west, the British Commonwealth from the east, and ended up in Tunis. Tunisia is not exactly a country mile from Italy, and the Germans failed to realise this until they lost Sicily.
Overall, my opponent has offered no sources, cancelling his own points, while I have been offering tonnes of relevant points.
You claim a multitude of "researched" and "relevant ideas" when It comes to your view of the luftwaffe. During the Battle of Britain, you claim that the British airmen were much more braver and experienced. three words for you, NO PRIOR EXPERIENCE. Besides a few campaigns in North Africa, British airmen did close to jack squat over the Europe, The only exception being the bombers who had priority objectives over France. So, in spite of this, you claim that the British airmen were "braver". How? given no prior experience. training only prepares you for so much.
You were completely correct, stating that Italy only priority's were border expansion. If you look at Italian campaigns, they were badly thought out, and ill-coordinated. You can assume that most were failures. But what you say about Japan's involvement during ww2 makes me facepalm. From 1939 to 1942, the Japanese were figuratively handing the Americans their asses on silver platters. You will make the assumption that I am not well versed, so I will explain early war Japanese supremacy. Many of the islands under american and British control, were captured quickly and effectively, until 1942 however when the battle of Midway tipped the scales in the Americans favour. In short, the Japanese lost Naval and air superiority. But Even then, the Japanese fought to the death on every island, regardless of weather, regardless of if they had weapons or not, regardless of sure annihilation. The Japanese government revolutionized Japan in the 20's, by bringing back the principles of Bushido. You fight for the emperor, or be disgraced and disgrace your family. The tenacity of the Japanese during ww2 is comparable to the Spartans last stand during the Battle of Thermoplyae.
Wow, I am sure a windbag. I commend you If you've read through all of this ranting, and I'm looking forward to your response.
1. How would I have known his sources, given he had not stated them?
2. Why are you thinking so high of the Japanese?
3. How were the British pilots not experienced?
Pro has stated some outrageous things, especially the Japanese style of warfare.
Pro has stated that the Japanese tenacity was like the Spartans' last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae. I would like to state that the very height of the Japanese military were fearing even prior to Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese Navy Admiral, Isokoru Yamamoto, said to his generals, "Gentlemen, we have just kicked a rabid dog". The Japanese, from then on, fought from fear. Yamamoto had spied on America first-hand, and had even tried to dissuade the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The American war industry created 131 aircraft carriers throughout the war, vital to any naval battle, for it provided itself air support. And the Japanese? 17. Now, if those 17 carriers, even with their Zeros and kamikaze skills, had fought the Americans, I highly doubt the Japanese could've sunk more than 10.
Back to RAF pilots, you seem to be forgetting that most pilots from World War 1 were 39-42 by the time World War 2 had started, still an acceptable age for pilots. Most of those 20 years, they were called back to their bases to practise the new planes, much better than the Wright-brother style planes of the 1910's.
You seem to be forgetting the planes themselves. The Spitfires were much better than the BF-109's. On top of that, if the Germans could reach England, they could only stay for 3-5 minutes. If they were shot down, they would be forced to surrender: RAF pilots could've hopped into another plane the same day and return fire. The British also had radar, so they could know where the Germans were. Those advantages, as seen in the summer of 1940 itself, are enough to prove the British would've held on.
German military strength was cut to pieces by the Treaty of Versailles, so the experienced pilots of Germany were forced to resign the German Luftwaffe of WW1, or face the consequences. So the German's only experience were Poland (hardly an experience giving country) France (of whom surrendered almost immediately) and the countries of Central Europe. So... 9 months of German pilot experience vs... 26 years of British pilot experience. That's a good 25 year, 3 month difference.
You've helped my point for Italy, proving that it was a useless country. Now, add that to the abundance of countries that Germany had as allies that were also useless (Finland, Bulgaria, Romania) and it's basically the same thing: Germany with its small European empire, Britain with its worldly one.
Back to Japan, you claimed the Japanese fought bravely. For this argument, I would like to refer to one of George S Patton's famous quotes, "Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets". This can be used to counter arguments of "brave" (or rather stupid) German and Japanese fanatics.
As for North Africa, you seem to be underestimating British equipment: Heavy artillery batteries (which fired 7 hours straight in prelude to El Alamein battle 2) Churchill and Sherman tanks (both quicker and quieter than their German counterparts, which also outnumbered the Germans 25 to 1, including Flak 88's) and the massive amount of supplies from the Empire, including men (from Free France, Britain, South Africa, Australia, Indians and New Zealand) of whom were 1,000,000 to Germany and Italy's 300,000) and supplies such as oil, water and food. Rommel's tanks were excellent, no doubt. But you know your tanks are gonna be useless soon when you're stealing gasoline from your Italian allies.
All in all, all arguments have been countered. I wish Pro luck in the result of this and future arguments. Vote Con!
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.