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

The Allies could have won World War 2 without the Soviet Union

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
Foucault has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 828 times Debate No: 95067
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




1. The Soviet Union doesn't join the Axis nor makes war with the Allies, they stay neutral throughout the entire war. In this debate, the Soviets are as neutral as Switzerland was in the Cold War.

2. The Allies consist of all the nations that was on the Allies side minus the Soviet Union, with all powers and capabilities unless we've agreed to restrict certain powers and capabilities in the comments.

3. Axis nations consist of the nations that was apart of the Axis pact. This is, Germany, Italy, Japan, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, and Slovakia, with all powers and capabilities unless we've agreed to restrict certain powers and capabilities in the comments.

4. Burden of proof will be shared. I, as pro, will need to make the argument that the Allies would defeat the Axis. You, as con, will need to make the argument that the Axis would defeat the Allies.

5. When I say win/defeat I mean one side will win by unconditional surrender like how it really ended.

If you are OK with these conditions accept. If there are any questions or concerns about this then bring them up in the comments before joining. Don't join unless everything is resolved.


Hello my friend! It's a pleasure to debate you again.

My first argument would be the horrible results of the Allies at the beginning of the war. Poland fell within weeks, the French hit back in the Saar Offensive which was an apt failure. And the British Expeditionary Force was soundly defeated at the Battles of Boulogne and Calais in 1940. Then came the ultimate retreat of Dunkirk.

Ironically, one reason for these failures was the greed of the Soviet Union who believed had a treaty with Hitler. The Soviets invaded Scandinavia and other eastern countries keeping them from countering Germany's advances.

But then Hitler reneged in '41 and invaded the Soviet Union reaching almost to Moscow. But Operation Barbarossa stalled thanks to the Soviets, and Germany had to fight on two fronts for the remainder of the war.

Then came the Soviet victory at Stalingrad which every historian will tell you, "broke the back of the German war machine." Without the Soviet Union- which was no doubt an 'Evil Empire'- I believe Nazi Germany may still be around today. Having brokered a negotiated peace with the beleaguered Allies.
Debate Round No. 1


Hello again! Indeed it is a pleasure to debate me, lol, I'm a funny guy, nice to see you again! Anyways.

True, in the first 10 months of the war, Germany swept across Europe. In 1 September, Germany invades Poland, then in the next 9 months invades Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, & France. There would be differences cause Switzerland like USSR doesn't help Germany conquer Poland, nor expands their own borders into other nations in eastern Europe. This provides more time, more preparations & so on for the allies before the Germans are able to reach into those nations ending in France.

One month after Poland, Einstein told Roosevelt about the bomb. In the Netherlands, Germany took heavy losses and could not launch an invasion of Britain from the air. [1] Hence the true turning point in World War 2 was the first defeat of the Germans in Battle of Britain. [2] Germans failed to gain air superiority, British plans if incapable of stopping Germans from their present position was to simply retreat midland outside of German range & battle them from there. Britain retained air supremacy, the other equally important aspect needed for Sea Lion would be a navy to challenge Britain's which Germany had no chance of doing. [3]

Britain all alone, no allies, fought for one year. Bombing Germany, fighting in the Middle East, & Africa, and even making gains against the Axis. [4] The Axis powers' reach wasn't that far from Europe, or past the Pacific, The British Empire & the US had global reach which can be seen.

Lets look at the numbers.

Germany had a total 17m troops that served. [5] [6] 6m for Italy. [7] 6m for Japan [8]. US 16.1m, [9] British Empire 15m [10]. At this point, the Allies outnumber the Axis by a few million troops, I haven't included China & the other contributors from the Allies. [11] Though incomplete, this will help understand the industrial capacity the Allies had over the Axis. The Allies had 2x more tanks, [12] over 2x more aircraft, [13], more resources, [14] and the naval strength of the Allies overwhelmingly outnumber the Axis. America's lend lease supplied 92% of USSR transport in trains, 1/3 of their trucks, 30% of aircraft, 7,000 tanks, and vast amounts of weapons, ammo, clothing and food. [15] These supplies is considered crucial to USSR victories in the war. Since they don't need that those resources would become things that we do need, to make more of whatever we needed.

Ultimately, this comes down to the outcome in Europe. The war in the Pacific is obvious, the Allies defeat Japan, the Soviets refused to fight Japan at all throughout the war until 3 months after Germany was defeated. Upon Japan's announcement of surrender, it was American military might cited for their reason for giving up, the atomic bomb. "Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization." [16]

Soviet involvement had no significance to the outcomes of the war in the Pacific [17] [18], the Battle of the Atlantic [19] [20], or the Battle of the Mediterranean [21]. American-British navies crushed the naval powers of the Axis. These navies became less and less a threat as the war went on. Because the Allied navies could & did defeat the naval powers of the Axis without Soviet assistance, their possessions outside of Europe would slowly be taken away as the Allied onslaught would grind them down into dust in a much smarter & strategic way then the Soviets did whom merely threw bodies until the Germans ran out of resources to contest them. With all possessions outside of Europe under allied control, the Allies would be able to turn focus on Europe. With Germany running out of resources against the Allies, the Allies would win the war through attrition and eventually make it to the Axis capitals in Europe. Certainly with nuclear weapons which did exist, however, even if the two dropped on Japan was all we could ever make. The Allies with superior numbers in almost everything, better technology in most aspects of the war (navy and air force), some parts of ground forces and such, the Allies would invade Europe, endure the hell the Soviets went through. Eventually having Allied flags fly throughout occupied Europe then over Axis member nations surrendering unconditionally.

This round has not been posted yet.
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
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bored_Debater 1 year ago
British navy is still intact.. Naval supremacy is what's needed for an invasion. My source showed they didn't have the transport aircraft to invade by air. They didn't have the navy to launch one by sea either. Then in March resources began arriving from America. Britain wasn't going to fall if air supremacy was gained by the Germans cause they needed considerably more then that to conquer them.
Posted by usawinseverytime 1 year ago
Britain was on its knees after the Battle of Britain, but Hitler turned his attention to the eastern front which allowed Britain to rebuild its Royal Air Force
Posted by FrostyCold 1 year ago
(And sorry went to bed couldn't answer your question but just disallow nukes).
Posted by FrostyCold 1 year ago
Without Russia Britain would've been massacred.
Posted by Bored_Debater 1 year ago
I highly doubt Britain would have lost the Battle of Britain.
Posted by usawinseverytime 1 year ago
Germany wins Battle of Britain, ally bombers don't/ can't bomb the heavy water research facilities in Norway, with 80% of their resources still in hand bc lack of Soviet Union, nazis fund their nuclear projects and get a bomb. With control over Britain, the Atlantic Ocean, and North Africa, there's no way for US to launch invasion or get close enough with an aircraft carrier to launch a bomber to use a nuke. Hitler has no interest in crossing the Atlantic, bombs Soviet Union anyway because he wants eastern Russia and their neutrality means nothing to him.
Posted by Bored_Debater 1 year ago
I updated the debate, one side is to win by forcing unconditional surrender on the other side. Anything else should be amended?
Posted by SafeWalk12 1 year ago
By win, do you mean short term win, or just in general, as in they would still be in control today.
Posted by Bored_Debater 1 year ago
Is the two nukes dropped on Japan all that the Allies have?
Posted by Bored_Debater 1 year ago
What do you propose we do about the question of nuclear weapons?
This debate has 4 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.