The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Jedi4
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Russia would have lost WWII without Allied assistance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,263 times Debate No: 65268
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

16kadams

Pro

Could Russia have won World War 2 without the help from the Western Allies?

Many people believe this is so, however I respectfully disagree.

As to how assistance is defined: Both military and economic assistance, not one or the other. My opponent must attempt to prove that is is likely that the Russians would have defeated the Germans in World War 2 had the Western Allies not intervened (for example, UK signs a peace treaty with Hitler after the fall of France and the Americans never enter the war--economically or militarily).

I thank whoever my opponent may be for accepting this debate.

Jedi4

Con

Russia needed no one but themselves brah. I accept.

FOR THE MOTHALANDDDD!!
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate.

1. The Allied Military intervention

Although one of the comments argues the Allies did not militarily intervene on the Western Front, he is incorrect. Although they did not directly send troops, they did play a significant role as to how the Eastern Campaign concluded.

a) Greece

The campaign in Greece was one of the most important factors in the execution of Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Russia) and its eventual outcome. Many historians believe that the attacks on Greece by Italy are the turning point of the war itself. Italy invaded Greece on April 6th, 1941. The Italians were unable to take the region, and asked for German assistance. The English in turn sent 60,000 troops, 100 tanks, and 300 aircraft in order to entangle as many German troops in the region as possible. This delayed Barbarossa by at least a month. Hitler would blame the loss in Russia on the Italians insistence on invading Greece. Hitler’s friend, Leni Riefenstahl, was quoted as saying, “if the Italians hadn't attacked Greece and needed our help, the war would have taken a different course. We could have anticipated the Russian cold by weeks and conquered Leningrad and Moscow. There would have been no Stalingrad” [1].

The delay caused the Germans to suffer winter and logistical losses due to the weather. As Operation Typhoon began, the advance slowed down due to weather issues. The rain caused mud to make Panzers immobile, and when the ground froze over (where the tanks could drive on it) Germans began to die of the cold. The advance on Moscow halted, and the Russians had prevailed. Operation Barbarossa, at this point, was not winnable—although, the Germans still may have been able to achieve a profitable peace treaty… That is, if the allies didn’t support Russia’s future war efforts.

b) Multiple fronts

One of the forgotten fronts opened by the allies was the Norwegian front. Although the allies never invaded there (although they had deception plans to force the Germans to station troops there [2]), the Norwegian theatre dramatically affected the outcome of World War 2. The fact that the English had ‘plans’ to invade England caused the Germans to place 300,000 troops in Norway throughout the entire war [3].

Imagine, for example, had these troops been part of Army Group North. Leningrad could have been taken, Leningrad was a huge port which provided the Soviets with Lend-Lease aid and was a large industrial city. Its loss would have significantly hampered Soviet war efforts. The loss would also dishearten Russian communists and lead to a morale boost for the invading Germans. More troops would have been spared for Operation typhoon, which would have led to the capture of Moscow, and possibly giving Hitler his victory on the eastern front.

The campaign in Africa led to Rommel never serving on the Eastern Front. Although he would not have been an army commander (he liked to lead from the front), he was an excellent smaller unit (for example, a corps) commander. This could have led to more success—or at least, more casualties inflicted on the Russians—had he served on that front. Further, the Italian and German troops serving in Africa could have been in Russia.

And, in 1943 – 44, the allies were in Europe. Fighting in Italy and France. Had these troops been usable, even at this late date, the Germans could have lasted a much longer time against the Russians. The Russians were running low on man power by the end of the war. Had all the Western Forces moved East, the Russians would have been delayed, and may possibly sign a peace with Hitler. Bagration would have been prevented or less significant, and Kursk may have been a German victory.

As we can see, these indirect effects significantly altered the course of World War 2.

c) Strategic bombing campaigns

The Allied bombing campaigns crippled the German war machine. 1.1 million pounds of bombs were dropped on Germany. For comparison, 1.4 million bombs were used in the ENTIRE WAR.

The Americans bombed cities, factories, railways, and any strategic site we could think of. German General Albert Speer noted, “The war is over in the area of heavy industry and armaments, from now on the material preponderance of the enemy can no longer be compensated for by the bravery of our soldiers.” German production slowed, communications ruined, and their troops could not be transported. Defensive and offensive capabilities simply were destroyed. German officers noted that they would often have significant reserves ready for use, but the Allied bombing of German railway made it impossible to move them efficiently, and they became worthless. American bombing operations damaged 75% of the buildings which served as 90% of aircraft production. This meant that the Germans could not produce aircraft, and would lose air superiority in every mission—something which is necessary to win mobile warfare [4].

---> As we can see, the military actions of the Western Allies crippled Germany

2) Economic intervention

The Lend-Lease program was called ‘Russia’s Life Saver’ by historian Albert Weeks. Russians troops were equipped, fed, and supported in every way by American industries. Michael Parrish notes, “The victory over Nazi Germany was achieved through the economic power of the United States and the lives of millions of Soviets” [5]. Without the American—and even English—aid, we would be living in a dramatically different world.

The Armed forces in 1945 have published research as to exactly how much the Allies had given to Russia and others. Combat vehicles were extensively given to the Russians, peaking in 1943 (when massive Russian offensives would lead to more offensives in 1944 and 45, which led to the destruction of Nazi Germany). The Americans gave the Russians a HUGE amount of material in order for the Russians to build their tanks (for example, we gave them tools and metal). We also gave a significant amount of railway supplies, and vehicles, which were essential to troop movement and communication. Had we not given this to the Russians, their success in future offensive and defensive operations is suspect and chances for Soviet victory diminishes. The Soviets also received 153,000 small arms (firearms) from the US and 6,000 artillery pieces [6].

3.9 million pounds of Lend Lease material went to the USSR over the Arctic Route, and this only accounted for 23% of total aid given to the USSR. 400,000 Jeeps were given to the USSR, as well as 12,000 armored vehicles. 11,000 aircraft were also given. 2.6 million pounds of gasoline was given to the USSR, as well as 35,000 motorcycles. 4.4 million pounds of food were send to feed Russian troops. Joseph Stalin was quoted as saying, “without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war.”[7][8]

I turn this over to my opponent!

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://etd.lsu.edu...
5. http://www.historynet.com...
6. http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Jedi4

Con

Jedi4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jedi4

Con

Why Russia needed no help. They're F*cking russia! They deal with bears and the cold. they created the f*cking mosin nagant which functions and still kills when the rifle is 100 years old

Observe

<a href=http://i.dailymail.co.uk...; />
<a href=http://himalman.files.wordpress.com...; />
Comment Picture
<a href=http://worldwar2headquarters.com...; />
<a href=http://www.imfdb.org...; />
<a href=http://worldwar2headquarters.com...; />
<a href=http://worldwar2database.com...; width="814" height="969" />

F*ckin bad$$. You cannot beat them. Nobody can.

Hail!
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

1) They're Russia

Excellent observation which I would never have suspected--indeed, it is hard for me to comprehend that Russia is... Russia.

Cool Putin rides a horse with no shirt... I can do the same thing, it would just be less exotic and sexy. How is this related to the topic at hand, exactly?

2) Mosin Nagant

The mosin was an exellent weapon, however, its widespread use does not mean it is the best weapon of its time. In fact, "it has shown up in various conflicts around the world, despite its age and obsolescence (emphasis mine)" [1]. It was a weapon which was cheap and could be mass produced, but it was not a superior rifle. The German stg 44, for example, was the first assault rifle created, and possibly influenced the design of the AK 47 [2].

3) Badass

There is no doubt in my mind that the Russians were fierce motivated warriors, but the fact is that is not enough alone to win a war. The German SS was also ideologically motivated, which even led them to commit atrocious war crimes related to the holocaust [3]. Further, the Russians lost significantly more troops than the Germans, generally twice as many. And in total Axis versus Soviet casualties, the Russians lost 3 million more. If cold made them badass, why would the German soldiers kill them in far greater numbers?[4]

______________






1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Jedi4

Con

1) They're Russia

look brosif the point is that russia is badasss that deals with the cold and sh1t. By there very nature the can win the war to win,

Riding a horse and looking awesome as f*ck iss the point making your argument irrelevent.

2) Mosin Nagant

You believe the mosin nagant is obsolete because some guy says so? Wow i tell you what ask a russian to shoot at you with a nagant and tell me you think there obsolete.

3) Badassery

The holocost never happened so that argue no count. Those loss of numbers dont make a war. Someone can win the war but lose a lot all that matters is one russian is standing.

God bless the motherland.

Amen

Yes




Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
The winter did effect Operation Typhoon, however the Russians did in fact defeat the German offensives in 1942 and 43 (i.e. Fall Blau and Citadel, for example) which ended German chances for success. And in my argument I detail how the allies ruined German chances of victory.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Russia did not beat Germany. The winter did.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Con, you're going to lose. No matter what you say, you're going to lose. Good luck though!
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
Jedi, argue well haha
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
The resolution assumes Hitler did indeed invade the USSR...
Posted by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
How could they have lost, if they never would have intervened if Germany never invaded them...?
Posted by Jedi4 2 years ago
Jedi4
Russia could fite hitler without anyone
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
(The invasion of the USSR IS THE REASON Hitler lost the war, however I think it would have been the most resounding victory for the axis if he had beaten the USSR... Good for him, terrible for the rest of the world, and the genocide of millions of slavs would be imminent :( )
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
They did intervene militarily by creating a second front and economically through significant lend-lease aid.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
The West didn't intervene though... Hitler invaded (or attempted to invade) the West as well. At the start of the war the Soviet's signed a peace treaty with Hitler which lasted for two years. When Hitler eventually did invade the U.S.S.R the West had already been fighting for years. In fact, the failed German invasion of the U.S.S.R was one of the main reasons that Hitler lost the war.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
16kadamsJedi4Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I was disappointed (being a Russian patriot myself) at Con's lack of argument.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
16kadamsJedi4Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: basically, con epically fails.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
16kadamsJedi4Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, this debate kind of went nowhere, I guess sources to Pro.