Operation Dragoon is part of the reason why there was a Cold War
Debate Rounds (3)
Churchill believed that after the invasion of Italy, the Allies could've headed east, taking Trieste and Ljubljana off the Germans, and then the Balkans and Adriatics.
I believe that had they gone through with Churchill's plan, Stalin would not have been confidant enough with his "empire" and call off attacking America, France and England.
The above is the goal of Pro. If he can successfully prove the above, the points should be in favour of him.
Operation Dragoon, as I have told so, happened in Southern France. My belief is, had Churchill persuaded Roosevelt to attack the Balkans and Adriatics, Stalin's empire would not have been as big as it was had they followed up this plan.
My opponent has also not realised that World War 2 was the excuse Stalin needed to build his empire. His excuse was to liberate countries from the reign of tyanny that the other World War 2 tyrant, Hitler, had placed on 3 quarters of Europe. I believe Stalin was so arrogant on forcing the Allies to invade and focus only on France because he was preparing an empire for more war. Had they denied Stalin and invaded the Balkans, it is possible to say that the Cold War would've never happened, or at least been shortened.
So I ask him for the final time, did Operation Dragoon lead to the start of the Cold War? Hitler was only an excuse Stalin used to build an empire. Otherwise, he is unrelated to the topic and Con should lose the debate.
I highly doubt that Stalin was building his empire just for safety and security. He clearly was a menace to the free world, and should never have been trusted with half of Europe under his belt.
I believe Con has put up some very weak and unrelated points and does not deserve the points.
I thank Con for this debate and wish him luck in this and future debates. Vote Pro!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con barely presented any arguments. I felt that pro didn't really show that without Operation Dragoon, the Cold War would never have started. However Pro did have more arguments than Con and he did try harder. Arguments go to Pro. Conduct goes to Con because he almost made me laugh with his Carpathia song. It was funny how Con thought that a song has any relevance in this debate. Con's source wasn't really relevant.
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.