The Instigator
Gabe1e
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Brian123456
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Nazi Germany lost World War II because they invaded Russia.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 852 times Debate No: 68205
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Gabe1e

Pro

Rules:

1. No trolling.

2. 4 rounds, 9,000 characters.

3. You must have 3 debates completed.

4. Try to use sources, and cite them so the audience, and more importantly me, is not confused.

5. Rebut all arguments, if capable.

Good luck.

Brian123456

Con

I accept


Resolution
The burden of proof is on pro, as pro needs to prove that the Nazi Germany lost World War II because the Nazi invaded Russia.

Pro's claim: ¨Nazi Germany lost World War II because they invaded Russia.¨
pro's claim cannot be altered in any shape or form.

Definitions
Lost: denoting something that has been taken away or cannot be recovered.
Invaded: enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.

I will await upon pro's opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Gabe1e

Pro

I agree with the "Invaded" definition, but not with the "lost."

Here's my definition of "lost."

Lost: "ending in or attended with defeat." [1] (6th definition)

If we would work with that definition instead, please do so. If we can't please tell me.

Arguments:

The Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact [2]

The pact was very simple. Because the Nazi's were growing stronger and stronger, Stalin basically got worried. Also, due to the fact Nazi Germany was already fighting France, Britain, and the other western allies, they would not have to worry about the Soviets from the east. Seems like a good idea. The terms of the pact were as follows:

1. The two countries agreed not to attack each other, either independently or with other powers.

2. To remain in consulation with each upon questions touching their common interests. (consulation definition, 2nd one: http://dictionary.reference.com...)

3. Not to join any powers directly or indirectly threatening the two parties.

Now, everything was set up and ready! I don't understand why Nazi Germany would just toss this pact aside and invade Russia, when they simply did not want to get involved, and more importantly, did not even interfere with Hitler's plan of domination. If they kept the pact, they would focus on their western front.. and as quoted "not worry about the Soviets from the east."

The amount of troops coming from the USSR

Germany had about 10 million troops in WW2. Their main allies (Japan, Italy, etc.) came up to about 10 million more. So they have about 20 million manpower. [3] The USA and Britain combined have 16 million, France did have 5 million but were taking over (not including them), and India had 2 million coming. It is about 20 million axis versus 18 million allies. When Germany invaded Russia, Russia added 12 million MORE to the Allies stack, which means about 20 million axis versus 30 million allies. It makes absolutely no sense to invade Russia.

Conclusion:

Nazi Germany as foolish to invade the USSR, because the USSR had more troops than the USA, and just added more troops to the allies, and because they already had a good pact in place, and it makes no sense to break it.

Over to you, Con.

Cites:

[1]- http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2]- http://www.britannica.com...

[3]- http://www.nationalww2museum.org...

Brian123456

Con

Rebuttals
Pro seems to be extremely convinced that the Nazi lost World war II because they betrayed ¨The Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact¨ or because they invaded Russia. However I do admit that it was in fact the dumbest move ever made in tactics, I do applaud Hitler for coming to his senses, because Hitler intended to dominate the world, in which he cannot accomplish because of Russia. Simply put Russia and the Nazi Germany eventually would fight against one another for world domination.
d
Therefore, I make the claim that the Nazi Germany did not lose World War II JUST because they did not follow their pact with Russia, but rather Nazy Germany lost World War II because they missed tons of winning opportunity.

Ex.

1. Many specialist believe that during the early-mid stages of World War II, a large amount of winning opportunities had opened up in the South of the Mediterranean shore. That Hitler should've ordered the capture of Cairo instead of attempting to capture Loundon.

2. Hitler's greatest mistake of the war (by many specialists) was that he was always so persistent of decimating the Soviet Union rather than following his objectives, which Hitler could've cleared by capitalizing on winning opportunities.

3.
¨Germany had about 10 million troops in WW2. Their main allies (Japan, Italy, etc.) came up to about 10 million more. So they have about 20 million manpower. [3] The USA and Britain combined have 16 million, France did have 5 million but were taking over (not including them), and India had 2 million coming. It is about 20 million axis versus 18 million allies. When Germany invaded Russia, Russia added 12 million MORE to the Allies stack, which means about 20 million axis versus 30 million allies. It makes absolutely no sense to invade Russia.¨

Pro obviously backsup his claim through mathematical terms, but this mathematical idea can also come in play in favor of my claim.

Back to my previous claim: Hitler did not capitalize on winning opptertunities. The fact that Hitler FOCUSED heavily on eliminating the Soviet Union (Russia) in a sense it was a smart idea, but Hitler didn't execute it correctly. However according pro's calculations the Nazi Germany had 10 million troops, but pro failed to specifically split how many, the USA and Britain had separately in troops. Therefore I will assume either both USA and Britain have 8 million troops or USA has more troops than Britain or vice-versa. Either way one side must have less troops than Nazi Germany.

Tactics that Nazi Germany should've done to capitalize on winning opportunities was to separate Britain's Royal Navy from the Suez Canal within the Mediterranean sea. Therefore The Nazi from there could've simply taken Afganhistan and Iraq with much ease and ceasing the US's highly oil producers, which would force the US or an ally to to recapture them; then if the Nazi Germany were smart they would manipulate the anticipated raid.

Once the Nazi Germany takes control of a highly valued producer for the US, then actions will be forced to be made. With much time on their hands the Nazi Germany should've focused on other European countries such as France or Britain, instead of the Soviet, which was clearly another mistake that I've mentioned before.

In conclusion, Nazi Germany lost World war II because they could not capitalize on winning opportunities not because they invaded Russia. It's like a game of chess. If you lose your queen, your strongest piece in the game, your chances of winning is decreased but isn't decided, but if you make plenty of mistakes, then those mistakes will stack and your chances of losing will GREATLY increase.

Cites:
http://bevinalexander.com...
http://www.thesaurus.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.2worldwar2.com...
http://www.historynet.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Gabe1e

Pro

Thank you, Con.

Rebuttals:

"Pro seems to be extremely convinced that the Nazi lost World war II because they betrayed ¨The Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact¨ or because they invaded Russia. However I do admit that it was in fact the dumbest move ever made in tactics, I do applaud Hitler for coming to his senses, because Hitler intended to dominate the world, in which he cannot accomplish because of Russia. Simply put Russia and the Nazi Germany eventually would fight against one another for world domination.
d
Therefore, I make the claim that the Nazi Germany did not lose World War II JUST because they did not follow their pact with Russia, but rather Nazy Germany lost World War II because they missed tons of winning opportunity."

I don't think my opponent understands that they had a whole pact set up, just so they wouldn't get in the way of each other... although Hitler did intend to dominate the world, he could have had a better chance if not attacking them..

"1. Many specialist believe that during the early-mid stages of World War II, a large amount of winning opportunities had opened up in the South of the Mediterranean shore. That Hitler should've ordered the capture of Cairo instead of attempting to capture Loundon.

2. Hitler's greatest mistake of the war (by many specialists) was that he was always so persistent of decimating the Soviet Union rather than following his objectives, which Hitler could've cleared by capitalizing on winning opportunities."

The reason why he wanted to capitalize on London is because he wanted to end the war with Britain right then and there. He could have if he didn't attack the Soviet Union, he would not have to worry about two fronts.

"Back to my previous claim: Hitler did not capitalize on winning opptertunities. The fact that Hitler FOCUSED heavily on eliminating the Soviet Union (Russia) in a sense it was a smart idea, but Hitler didn't execute it correctly. However according pro's calculations the Nazi Germany had 10 million troops, but pro failed to specifically split how many, the USA and Britain had separately in troops. Therefore I will assume either both USA and Britain have 8 million troops or USA has more troops than Britain or vice-versa. Either way one side must have less troops than Nazi Germany. "

Well, my opponent obviously did not look at my source, it shows the exact amount the USA AND Britain have... maybe I should show it to him. It clearly states in the graph that the USA had 12 million troops, and Britain had 4 million. [1] It was not a smart idea, it just added more to the total of the Allies... as stated before.

"Tactics that Nazi Germany should've done to capitalize on winning opportunities was to separate Britain's Royal Navy from the Suez Canal within the Mediterranean sea. Therefore The Nazi from there could've simply taken Afganhistan and Iraq with much ease and ceasing the US's highly oil producers, which would force the US or an ally to to recapture them; then if the Nazi Germany were smart they would manipulate the anticipated raid."

Thank you for backing up my argument. Instead of attacking the Soviet Union, that was one of my arguments, to focus on the Middle-East.

Arguments

Focusing on other opportunities:

Con backed up my arguments, stating that "Therefore The Nazi from there could've simply taken Afganhistan and Iraq with much ease and ceasing the US's highly oil producers, which would force the US or an ally to to recapture them; then if the Nazi Germany were smart they would manipulate the anticipated raid." and "Once the Nazi Germany takes control of a highly valued producer for the US, then actions will be forced to be made." Exactly what I had in mind.

If they had focused on other opportunities to weaken the USA and Britain, they could have eliminated the presence in Europe, and possibly even get the USA to surrender. Then, they could focus on Russia. But, like I said before, Hitler made a foolish choice to take on two SUPERPOWERS (USA and Russia) at the same time. They both had 12 million troops each, which is more than Nazi Germany and their allies combined. They had much more to focus on than the Soviet Union.

The cold weather:

It was also idiotic to invade during Summer, because Hitler did know it would take a long time to clear out the Soviet Union, and Fall and Winter are right around the corner. The reason they lost so many men was due to the cold weather. As you can see from this map, Nazi Germany was taking so much land, until they hit winter. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) This map shows how the invasion was spread out, and also what time period each took place at. Right after September, the invasion halted. German troops were worn down by the winter, and over 15,000 limbs had to be amputed due to frostbite. [2] The German's really did underestimate the Russian's winter, and they thought they could tough it out, but they lost more troops from the cold than mostly anything else.

Fighting a war on two fronts, the Middle East:

So Nazi Germany had to deal with 2 big countries on the western front, and on the east another superpower which was the Soviet Union. Because Nazi Germany and allies had 20 million troops, and the Soviet Union and USA had 24 million combined, it was stupid to try to attack going both ways. 16 million coming from one side, and 12 million coming from the other. Hitler and the Germans had only 20 million troops to spare, so they either had to go 10 million on each side, or plan on dividing it. But, some allied troops were spread thin, (like the Japanese) because they were already being attacked, so they had less troops on each side, which led to each side pushing the German's back. On the other hand, if they had focused on the Western Front and the Russians later, they would have 20 million fighting a western front battle, versing 16 million allies. (estimate) Also, if they had attacked down in the Middle East, they would have taken away oil from the USA (as Con stated before) and possibly get a strategical advantage on the Russians later if they had to deal with them. Instead, they attacked them right out of Europe, which was a really stupid move.. [3]

Over to you, Con.

Cites:

[1]- http://www.nationalww2museum.org...
[2]- http://www.history.com...
[3]- http://classroom.synonym.com...



Brian123456

Con

Rebuttals
"The reason why he wanted to capitalize on London is because he wanted to end the war with Britain right then and there. He could have if he didn't attack the Soviet Union, he would not have to worry about two fronts."

Apparently pro did not read one of my points. I would like to remind pro that Hitler should've separated Britain's Royal Navy from the Suez Canal which would've forced the cut-off between Britain's main force and the Royal Navy, and from there take Afganhistan and Iraq, also cutting off US's oil producing country.

Despite the obvious intentions of obliterating Russia, Russia was only on the defensive and almost rarely on the offense before Hitler planned a large raid on Russia. Therefore Hitler didn't really have to deal with two fronts.

"If they had focused on other opportunities to weaken the USA and Britain, they could have eliminated the presence in Europe, and possibly even get the USA to surrender. Then, they could focus on Russia. But, like I said before, Hitler made a foolish choice to take on two SUPERPOWERS (USA and Russia) at the same time. They both had 12 million troops each, which is more than Nazi Germany and their allies combined. They had much more to focus on than the Soviet Union."

Pro admits that if Hitler had capitalized on winning opportunities then he would've won the war. However pro acts as if the Nazi Germany completely lost after they invaded Russia? As a matter of a fact, when the Nazi Germany invaded Russia, they completely demolished the Soviet's frontlines and many speculated that at that rate, Nazi would've overthrown the Soviet within weeks. However until the Nazi Germany penetrated deeper into Russia, Soviet's forces overwhelmed the Nazis', and thus Nazis' were forced to retreat. Although Nazi Germany were forced to retreat under the heavy circumstances, doesn't actually mean they couldn't still weaken Britain and other European countries, and pressure the US to reclaim Afganhistan and Iraq. The fact that the Soviet's frontline got DEMOLISHED within days of an ANTICIPATED raid by the Nazi? I believe at that point, the Soviet were to afraid to actually counter raid Germany.

Points
Hitler's choice to invade Russia was one large mistake on his part, but as I mentioned before that reason alone did not resolute the results of the war, rather than multiple large mistakes, is what led to Hitler's defeat.

Ex.

1. Hitler declares war on United when the Nazi weren't obligated to do so, since the United States only declared war on Japan due to the Pearl Harbor incident. Therefore the Nazi only agreed to assist Japan under defensive circumstances. The United States at the start of the war, weren't fighting on European grounds. However due to the declaration of warfare against the United states by Germany, it led to an unneeded and pointless slaughter between two countries.

2. Hitler blew the biggest opportunity of the war, and that was recruiting Turkey and Spain into the Axis (Nazi alliance/coalition) Although Spain was on The Axis's side they did not input any warfare effort in. As the war progressed Turkey's tension with Russia increased and trouble started to arise, but instead of taking this to the Nazi's advantage,the Nazi overlooked the fact that they simply could've recruited Turkey into the war at that time.

Despite Hitler attempting to convince Spain to join in the warfare, Hitler felt resentment after a negotiation between Spain and the Nazi failed for the first attempt, in which Hitler should've sucked up his pride and would've gotten Spain on their side.

3.Hitler did not give the respect the Nazi Navy deserved. During World war II Hitler was known to specialize in land battles, rather than sea battles. Therefore Hitler never comprehended the value of naval battles. Which led to the British having the upper hand on sea. An example of how Hitler could've used his Navy more appropriately, was cutting off the path of the British Royal Navy and the British's main force at Suez canal, I believe I have mentioned this in my previous argument.

4. While America, Canada, and Britain were in progress of atomic bombs, Hitler and his Nazi Germany failed to follow up with "their" atomic bomb, because the Nazi had no interest in the mechanics behind the theoretical physics, something that correlated with Jewish Science.

Sources:

http://bevinalexander.com......

http://www.thesaurus.com......

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

http://www.2worldwar2.com......

http://www.historynet.com......

http://www.theguardian.com......

http://www.sparknotes.com...

http://io9.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Gabe1e

Pro

I'm going to have to forfeit this debate, please vote Con. I am very ill, and I cannot go on the computer. I have had this sickness for a day or two, and I hope Con understands.

Illness: Stomach Bug.

I've thrown up at least 10 times already, it's bad. I've seen a doctor, and I am on medication. Sorry.
Brian123456

Con

I understand, hope pro feels better.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by enternamehere 2 years ago
enternamehere
I would just like to say that Russia's winter is what lost them the war... He should of learned from Napoleon, when attacking Russia, pack some bloody winter clothes.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I so want to accept this and run the most ridiculous argument, but I'll refrain.

I was going to argue that they lost because it was God's will.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I would say yes, as the turning point occurred after the failure of operation typhoon, but I would also argue the Germans *could* have won.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Interesting topic
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
I would accept, but I am currently debating something else.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Interesting topic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.