The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

The Italians cost Nazi Germany World War 2.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,140 times Debate No: 60791
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Erwin Rommel, one of the most able and trustable Field Marshals in the Nazi team was placed into North Africa.

I believe that had Rommel and the German High Command placed him in Russia, NOT NORTH AFRICA, the Axis could've used his expertise and beaten the Russians.

Thus, the Italians, with their pathetic army, was the reason why the Nazis, and indeed the Axis Powers, lost the war.

Had the Italians decided not to attack the British colonial forces in North Africa:
A. Those forces could've been deployed in Russia, sufficient to beating the Russians on the Eastern Front.
B. The time spent sending reinforcements to North Africa (several weeks) would not have been delayed, allowing the Nazis an earlier invasion time, thus weaker and more unprepared Russian defences.


Firstly, I would like to thank the opponent for allowing me to debate this; since this debate motion is an empirical debate motion, the BoP lies upon the opponent. Henceforth, for the opponent to win, he has to prove that on balance, Italy was responsible for the fall of Nazi Germany. Simply, for me to win, I simply have to disprove his points and prove that, indeed, Italy would have been a strain on Germany if events did not turn out well, and Germany’s alliance with Italy was beneficial during WW2.

1R1NRC: On Rommel’s Application of Technique and the Eastern Front

The opponent states that “if Rommel, and his troops were transferred to the Eastern Front, Germany would have won the war” This is a very fallacious statement. Why? Because of two reasons; Russia has more men, and Russian military tactics are renders that of Rommel ineffectual. Let us first take a look at Rommel’s doctrines; Rommel, the “Desert Fox” was an armored forces commander. He was a Clausewitzian-Guiderian in terms of military warfare; he believed in the concentration of one attack, as Clausewitz did, on a single position, which would lead to a breakthrough in that position. This effort was easily applied in North Africa, because the British and Americans had similar doctrines; apart from this, Rommel also believed that his tanks “could achieve anything” This was true due to the landscape of the Saharan Desert, which showed that tanks here had a comfortable ride to the battlefield. [1]

However, when these tactics were put into operation in Russia, they will fail. Russian commanders have adopted a new radical doctrine of warfare, fitted for the Russian Army and its soldiers. It was called “Deep Operational Warfare” Deep Operational Warfare arose from debates early on in the Red Army; these questions were on the (1) nature of warfare, (2) on the technology of warfare, and (3) on the Russian situation. When these questions were answered, the Red Army adopted a new radical outline for attacks; to counter the Clausewitzian-Guiderian doctrine, the Russian Red Army doctrine would encourage their men to attack from several places at once. This was done during Operation Uranus, when a Russian pincer encircled the German 6th Army’s deep salient into Soviet land. So if the methods of Rommel were applied to Russia, he would have suffered many defeats; he would have created a salient, in which the overwhelming Russian forces could have immensely destroyed the German’s rear and encircled the enemy. Apart from this, one has to take into account that Russia had an excessive amount of men to spare. Rommel was dealing with forces outnumbering him by only a ratio of 2:1, whilst the German generals in Russia were dealing an enemy, which outnumbered them with a ratio of 6:1. But the territorial changes would have destroyed all inklings of Rommel's tank tactics. The desert is a normal place for armored warfare. Russian forests? No. In 1941, an armored division that went into Russia with 60 tanks ended up with 12 operational ones. The Russian Winter was horrible for the Germans; it completely destroyed the German armored core. Rommel’s method [1] was supposedly based on surprise attacks, where his forces would just surprise the enemy at any moment in an attack. This meant the tanks had to be fast and agile; there was no such thing as that on the Russian plains. [2]

1R2AC: Italy’s Hypothetical Betrayal

With this said, let us speak of how Italy would have betrayed the Germans if the Germans did not aid Italy in North Africa. Italy’s alliance with Germany was, to say the least, precarious during the first days; Italy had promised to aid Austria from German annexation. In a speech, Benito Mussolini stated that “to the people of the East [Austria], let us exchange ideas and prosperity!” With this being said, he opposed Hitler’s policy by deploying Italian troops to the Italian-Austrian borders; however, Mussolini needed Hitler’s support in Ethiopia, and this was the only reason why the Anschluss was possible.

Nevertheless, the Italian-German Alliance was rough, to say the least. Albeit they made good friends and economic partners, both of them had conflicting ideals; if Italy adopted the Nordicism of Germany, then they would be de facto discriminating against the Southern Italians, who came from a much more Mediterranean descent; they might have been inhabitants left over from the Muslim occupation. Apart from this, Italy’s government was largely secular until the start of World War Two; the anti-Semitic policies of Adolf Hitler were incompatible with the Italian Fascist movement. The Italian Fascist Movement contained many Jewish supporters; 10,000 Italian Jews belonged to the Italian Fascist Party. With this being said, Hitler’s Nordicism would have destroyed the Italian Nation and the Italian Fascist Party. In a case where Germany does not honor its treaty with the Italian nation, things would have turned out to be much different from what it initially turned out to be; if Germany did not assist Italy’s campaign in the Balkans, the Italy would have clearly betrayed to the Allied Forces. This would be because Italian Nationalist were frustrated after attempts to claim the “unredeemed lands” were frustrated by Italy’s alliance with Germany. Italy’s betrayal to the Allied Forces would mean the opening of another front, down south of Germany, in which Italian troops would easily flush into German territory, without much German resistance. The Finns committed these actions during the controversial Lapland War, when Mannerheim released his ferocious army of Finns upon the German occupiers; the Germans were caught with surprise and quickly retreated. Germany puts too much trust on their allies, and they depend on them for resources. If Italy joined the allies, then Stalin would have also joined the Allied Forces and Germany would have been crushed within a year. Henceforth, it was Germany’s best interest to assist the Italians.

1R3AC: Hitler’s Decisions

In fact, if one would want to analyze the German defeat, one must understand that Adolf Hitler was at the center of it. I do not deny that Adolf Hitler was a splendid leader, but he was an awful commander. Germany cannot fight a two-front war, as the German army would easily be squeezed. Hitler also did not follow the doctrines of Machiavelli fully, which led to the quick draining of his support in German-occupied areas.

Firstly, Adolf Hitler was foolish to attack the USSR in July of 1941; albeit if the attack were shorter (instead of the three Axis at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad), it would have been a success. However, Adolf Hitler did not follow the advice of his generals; he went on with the plan. July to December was not a long time; Hitler and his generals knew that if the invasion did not end by December, then his war was over. Hitler took a gamble and quickly launched a huge attack on Russia; the Red Army retreated, but it regrouped and launched a series of offensives in December 1941; the war was a short dash of hope. Quoting Robert Burns, “But Mousie, thou art no thy lane, In proving foresight may be vain” With the Winter Offensives of 1941 showing Hitler that this war would be a war of attrition, he foolishly declares war on the United States on December 11th, 1941, soon after the Japanese attack. This led the United States to have an incentive to attack Germany; as many German troops were now stationed on the Eastern Front, Hitler was now at war with two superpowers; Nazi Germany simply did not have the economic, industrial capabilities to sustain the war. This was made worst by Hitler’s ignorance of “preserve or destroy” If Hitler preserved workers, then his economic capabilities might have been increased. If he took good care of his Slavic prisoners, they would have been more productive; the German Wartime Economy was decreasing. Ergo, it was Hitler who was at fault here, not Italy.




Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has pointed out, rightly, that Rommel lacked caution and was very aggressive, and that the Soviet tactics were very clever and would've countered him.

But Hitler, not Rommel, was Commander-in-Chief, thus Hitler made the decisions on where to attack and when. Now, Rommel's Afrika Korps would've been very useful in the Battle of Moscow, which would've deeply dropped Russian morale if captured, that's if Stalin HADN'T surrendered.

Hitler was like Montgomery: cautious, but still strategic and clever. You really think that in Russia, with Hitler being Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht in Russia and Rommel simply guiding a few divisions as to Hitler's order, that Rommel would charge the Russian lines?

Rommel KNEW where the enemy was weakest: the British, fortunately, found this out before late. So Rommel would've stopped his aggressive thought of mind, FOR ONCE, and obeyed Hitler's orders. I highly doubt he would've denied them, and if he did, he, and his army, would pay.

Meanwhile, about Italy, the Italian army was simply a liability. Completely useless. Let me take the example of Italy's invasion of Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia)

It took Mussolini's army 8-9 months to capture Ethiopia, and, at this rate, even with tactical brilliance and massive armies, it would've taken them 16-18 months to completely capture Egypt. But they didn't, for their armies were a joke. Almost all offensives by pure Italian (no German) force prior to the landings by Erwin Rommel were useless. Heck, they couldn't defeat the French alpine divisions when they entered the war. I repeat, The French.

Had this poor leadership, along with lack of fighting spirit, lack of military skills and above all, scattered divisions try to fight the British, I think we'd all agree the Italians would be beaten out of North Africa.

Obviously, to remove this (pathetic) Italian threat, Churchill would've dispatched Wavell and Auchlineck's forces onto mainland Italy itself, along with Free French, Indian, South African, Dutch, Australian and New Zealand divisions. The above is probably all that was needed to stop the Italians.

And then what? The Allies would sweep through France easily, assisted by a landing in the South of France (like Operation Dragoon) and the North of France (like Operation Overlord)

The Allies would've then opened up 2 fronts: Spanish and Germanic.

The Allies would sweep through the (also) pathetic Spanish forces, who are (if possible) worse then the Italians, and liberate Madrid from fascism. The deal is simple from there: the troops already fighting Germany on the German Front would be assisted by the Allies who had fought in Spain about 4-10 weeks later. This, along with the (supposed) men from the landings of Northern and Southern France, would be enough to trap the Germans, who's forces are (remember?) still pinned up in Russia.

Along with the Russians, the Allies would (if possible) land in Norway, beat the Germans out of Norway, then cut off the Narvik route, move along into Denmark, liberate Denmark, and then attack Hamburg and Berlin from the North.

Meanwhile, the Russians would push and push and push the Germans back into Poland.

The Allies claim Berlin, the Russians claim Warsaw, and the War is over in about 1943-44.

All because Hitler aligned himself with Mussolini and Rommel was never dispatched to North Africa. ^

I know this was a (possibly) crazy hypothesis and estimation, and I never refuted the arguments above, but I would like to point out that the above could be consequences of Hitler and Mussolini's alliance.

Also, The US would lose next to no men this way, along with Japan.

If Japan were still to attack Pearl Harbor, after the German defeat, the Allies, along with Russia, would just pit ALL forces onto the tiny archipelago called Japan.


1R1NRC: On Rommel's Worth in Russia

Firstly, I do not deny that Rommel was a military genius (the opponent has strawman my arguments so badly that I must state here that I take offense from him understanding that I think Rommel was a careless commander); but he was able to do his duty effectively ONLY because of several factors which can be attributed to North Africa only. Rommel had three factors working towards him; (1) he was a brilliant tactician in the fields of Clausewitz, but not perhaps in the field of Sun-Tzu and modern Soviet-type warfare, (2) he had territorial advantages due to the front he fought in, and (3) he had the benefits of Hitler barely caring about his front. These benefits were to be almost completely destroyed in Russia; the first and second factors have already been shown false in the previous round, and the opponent accepts this; the third benefit must also be shown false in order for this argument to be fully understood.

1. Hitler cared more about the Eastern Front than the Western Front

1.1 This is due to the fact the Slavs were seen as "subhumans" to the Nazi Ideology. Mein Kampf, Chapter XIV deals with the Russian question accordingly. "If we speak of soil [to be conquered for German settlement] in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states." [1]

1.2 Rommel's plan was successful only due to the fact that Hitler and his high command often left them unhindered; this was due to the fact that Hitler barely cared about North Africa.

1.21 There were many instances when Rommel defied Hitler; accordingly to the Commando Order, all Commando captured by the Nazis were to be executed; Rommel went on to have tea with him

1.3 According to proposition 1.2, Rommel was always a rebel to Hitler's order; he was also in no mood to be commanded. He was a man who always enjoyed sacking people who did not follow his orders exactly; he was a well-educated "Hitler" per se. [2]

1.4 Accordingly to proposition 1 and 1.1, Hitler cared about Russia immensely; henceforth, he interfered with a lot of factors in the Eastern Front Campaigns.

1.5 Rommel did not like "higher" interference; he understood war better than Hitler. [2]

1.6 But accordingly to proposition 1.4, Hitler would always be breathing on Rommel's neck, directing every of his action. Rommel had no freedom of control, and henceforth, his corps would have become a useless korps to the Eastern Front, and Rommel's tactical genius would have not helped him.

1R2NRC: On Italy's Armed Forces During the French Campaign

The opponent's comments upon the French are disgusting; the French Armed Forces deserves some respect. These men were not just soldiers who simply threw their weapons away; there was some serious resistance from the French. A German soldier even once stated that "apart from us, the French are the best soldiers in Europe" With this said, one must understand that Italy was indeed very militarily weak. This fact is a truism; but to compare Italy with France is like to compare North Korea with the United States. Italian troops weren't weak; the officers were. Italian troops indeed had high morale; but the Italian incompetency was due to the fact that their officers were incompetent. And even this was falsifiable; it would come to a conclusion that Italian equipment of obsolete and incompetent. Through thorough analysis of the Alps Campaign, one can see two factors; (1) that the French were well prepared, and (2) the Italians weren't well prepared. France had created the "Maginot Lines of the Alps" to counter the Italian threat, and they had indeed 800 platoons of elite mountain troopers. Italy only had regular soldiers. The Italian Army, however, was a very competent force; the Italian Expeditionary Force in Russia was an example of this. During the Battle of Nikolevyka, the demoralized Italian Alpinis Corps withdrew, heroically, from the Russian encirclement; the Soviet War bulletin N.630 honored the Italians by saying that "the only that can only be concluded to not have lost a single battle was the Italian Alpini Corps" [3][4]

1R3NRC: Defending Franquist Spain

The rest of the opponent's arguments only seem to prove my point; he proves that if Germany didn't help Italy out, Germany would have fallen by 1943
. This proves my contention that Italy helped delay the German defeat, and indeed did not cost Germany WW2. HOWEVER, I am unable to accept his comments made upon the Spanish Armed Forces during the Franquist Era. A brief amount of characters shall go into defending the Franquist Armed Forces. The Franquist Armed Forces had an immense amount of experience, due to fighting in the Spanish Civil War. During World War II, the Spanish Army had 300,000 men, trained for defensive action. To call the Franquist Armed Forces puny is a great insult to the heroic actions of the Blue Division; 47,000 Spanish soldiers fought with their German Comrades, and in one instance, held a line against a Soviet Force, supported by tanks and infantry which were 7 times the size of their own. A quick victory against Spain is all but a dream; the Spanish people will surely oppose this attempt to usurp the power of Spain, not to mention that Spain was not an Axis Nation. [5][6]

1R4NRC: Italy's Heroic and Beneficial Involvement in Russia

Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini was beneficial. If this alliance were non-existent, Mussolini would have released his armed forces onto Germany, taking the parts of the Alps that used to be part of Austria. Nevertheless, this contention will be based upon the fact that Italy's involvement in Russia was the only reason why the Nazis did not suffer the entire collapse of the Eastern Front. Italian and Romanian troops were deployed into Russia as "rearguards" (that is, they guarded the rear of the German formation). The Italian troops here were often unprepared to face the cold winds of Russia, but they had the same fighting spirit as their German counterparts. The Alpinis were deployed to fight the Russians at the Don River; as a result of this, troops trained for mountain combat were used to defend plains. The Alpinis were often confused; they were not trained, and were not equipped for mechanized warfare. Mountain warfare was their expertise. This fact is often ignored, unjustly. NEVERTHELESS, the held out until January 1943. Italian troops were often faced with overwhelming odds; the Italian Eigth Army experienced non-stop attacks from the Soviets. Facing overwhelming forces during Operation Little Saturn, the forces at the Italian Center fought a battle of annihilation. Before this, in 1942, Italian riflemen had done well to defend the German rear; at the Don River, the Italian Alpini Divisions annihilated a Russian division and held their lines against initial Soviet attacks for months until Little Saturn. After Operation Little Saturn, the Italian forces were faced with another attack, and were encircled. However, the Alpini Regiment fought a battle of life and death with the Soviets at Nikolaievka, and broke through. [7] [8]

If the Italians did not guard the rear for the Germans, then it would be likely that the Germans would not have any success in Russia; Italian involvement is often looked down upon. These soldiers were heroic soldiers, who fought for their fatherland and their king, and successfully defended their grounds against all odds.










Debate Round No. 2


First off, I apologise to have 'offended' my opponent about France, Spain and Italy's military strength, but you need to look at the facts.

Spain WAS indeed an Axis Nation, simply not looked upon as large as Germany, Italy or Japan. That's like saying Romania, Hungary, Finland and Bulgaria weren't Axis Nations, but they were: they supported Hitler in Russia.

Going to France, that Nazi soldier was clearly stuffed in the head. All the French Resistance did was blow up a couple of railway stations and train cars and other whatnots that could've helped the Nazis. Did they stop the trains that took innocent Jews to Auschwitz? No... They were too scared of the Nazis, and simply hid in the shadows. To be honest, their main help was during the liberation of Paris during 1944, and that was it.

But to Italy, my opponent seems to claim that had the Italians not been allies with the Nazis, they would've been on the Allies side and invaded Germany. That is a flat lie.

Let's say that weren't Fascist. They could be neutral: there is no argument that claims they could've been Allies.

Now, let's look at Italian Soldiers on the Eastern Front.

During the Battle of Stalingrad, the Russians were getting destroyed, with little resistance in some buildings stopping the Germans from taking Stalingrad 100%, and, of course, moving on to the Volga.

The Germans' flanks were defended by the Satelite countries: Finnish, Bulgarians, Romanians, ITALIANS.

So what happened? Zhukov put his army, the one he prepared for a month or so, to trap the German Sixth Army inside Stalingrad. How? It involved destroying the men on the flanks. What happened? I'll tell you.

The Romanians didn't have any Anti-Tank weapons.
The Hungarians didn't have enough ammunition.
The Italians were SLAUGHTERED.

Thus, the Germans were trapped in Stalingrad with no reinforcements possible, and no nearby army to break through the Soviet circle. Result? The Russians moved in for the kill, Paulus' Sixth Army was captured, and thus, one of Germany's greatest generals was now Russian. Paulus would testify at the Nuremburg Trials.

I'm not saying the Italians were the COMPLETE blame for the loss at Stalingrad, but as one of the Axis Powers, you gotta be able to hold off the Russians. If my opponent's statement above is correct, then the Italian Army is worse then the Spanish. Pathetic. But I guess I'm comparing the Blue Division to a bunch of stooges, so what do I know?

Talking about Rommel, he was a great general. So I think that he'd understand, along with Guderian, Paulus and all the other great Nazi generals, that they could beat Zhukov alone, for he was the one in charge of the defence of Moscow.

Luckily, the Russians trapped the Nazi army in a pincer movement, something I believe Rommel would've seen. THAT was when Hitler became Commander-in-Chief, after the failure of Moscow.

About North Africa, the British forces there were quite good. But, even with Italian lack of skill, I believe that they couldn't beat Italy, had they tried, as the Nazis would simply drive their tanks through to help with the defence.

I wish my opponent good luck in the result of this, and future debates. Vote Pro!


3R1NRC: On Spain

Firstly, the opponent has stated, rather falsely, that Spain was an Axis Nation. For nations to be officially designated as "Axis" nations, they must have singed the Triparite Pact; the three original signers of this pact were Germany, Japan, and Italy. Soon, however, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria and Slovakia joined; these nations were fascist nations. Nations, such as Thailand, Manchuria and China, were called "unofficial" Axis nations, as they never signed the Triprarite Pact but was in a way, officially at war with Allied Nations (and often fought side by side with Axis powers). Note that Spain was not in any of these agreements; albeit they were ideologically close, they did not declare war on any of the Allied forces. The Blue Division was composed of an army of volunteers sent to Leningrad and Stalingrad to fight; they were not an official Spanish Armed Forces per se. Francisco Franco was determined to not plunge his country into a war; the opponent's logic would be that any country that supported Germany could be considered "Axis Nations" However, take note that Sweden sent iron to both the British and the German forces; but they were officially neutral. India might have also been considered an Axis country as they did provide a Legion (Free Indian Legion) to support the Nazi cause. Nevertheless, I am not here to defend Spain, but to defend Italy.

3R2NRC: On France

The opponent talks about France in an absurd way; he did not talk about the "French Army" but the "Free French" At this point, we must observe that the Free French were in no ways as organized as the French Army; the Free French Army was one of the largest, biggest and possible best organized resistance groups in the war. The opponent ignores the fact the Free French forces carried out increasingly effective campaigns against Vichy France, albeit most of them occured outside of Europe. But apart from this, without the Free French forces, Paris would have never been freed; Paris was the symbol of German dominance in France. Apart from this, the "Free French" forces cannot be compared to the French Army; one cannot compare a government to a political party, an organization to an army, apples to oranges. However, again I am not here to defend Spain, or France, but I am here to defend Italy.

3R3NRC: On Italy

Firstly, the opponent states that Italy would not have launched an attack on Germany even if they weren't allies; but the opponent makes the fatal mistake here. He "assumes" that a condition was met, and with this assumption, he took another course. However, in making alternative historical hypothesis about something, we must take the status quo of the nation and work from their. Henceforth, we are talking about the fascist Italy, and not the non-Fascist Italy that might have prevailed if it weren't for Mussolini. Mussolini was a staunch revanchist; he had a plan to reclaim "unredeemed" lands. His alliance with Hitler was brought about because of two things; (1) the need of another superpower to support it's involvement in Ethiopia, and (2) he needed economic assistance. In 1938, Austria was annexed by Germany in an action called Anschluss; via an agreement in 1934, Italy was bounded by alliance to assist Austria. Italy responded to the news of Anschluss with deep condemnation; Mussolini had designs upon the province of Dalmatia, a province with around 30,000 Italian speaking inhabitatns. Dalmatia was part of Austria before Anschluss, and after Anschluss, part of Germany; so it would have been incorrect to assume that Italy would have done nothing, when it was clear that millions of Germany's men were in the West, to reclaim these lands. The opponent's "let's say" arguments are based on truisms that are historically inaccurate, which makes his analysis more or less a crazy hypothesis.

One must now look at Italian soldiers in WWII; the opponent provides us with a vague explanation of the events that happened in WWII, but I guess that this shall do. Italian soldiers in WWII are often called "ineffective" and many other derogratory names. But firstly, we must observe the opponent's attacks against Romanian and Hungarian troops first. "THE ROMANIANS DIDN'T HAVE ANTI-TANK WEAPONS" Such lies; the Romanians did indeed have anti-tank weapons, most notably the obsolete 37mm and 47mm, but when these were proven obsolete, the Romanians were reduced to using Molotov Cocktails and AT mines, also very effective Anti-Tank weapons. This was the same case as the Germans and the Finns; they both destroyed a considerable amount of Russian tanks. "Hungarians did not have enough ammunition" This claim is not supported by any source and has yet; the Hungarian troops were often confused, and fled; but this is another issue, and not an issue of this debate. But the cowardice, the oppoennt says, is like comparing "The Blue Division to a bunch of stooges" Firstly, this is a very disrespectful statement; the Italian forces were sent in to fight a war in a manner completely different from their training. Deploying Alpinis to guard a river was like deploying a Navy Regiment into a landlocked country; and with this said, the Alpinis did incredibly well, often fighting to the last man and holding enemy with forces twice the size of theirs. Apart from this, the opponent provides no account of any Italian "stooge" being killed; he just simply states that. He has ignored action at the center of the German Rear during Little Saturn, the pre-Uranus action when Italian riflemen defended their grounds and even annihilated a Soviet Riflemen regiment who would've punched holes into the line, allowing Soviet troops to attack Germans from the rear, but most of all, he has ignored Soviet War Bulletin N.630 and the heroic action of the Alpinis in their epic breakthrough at Nikolaevky. The Italians were slaughtered, but at least the fought till the end whilst being slaughtered; this gave the Germans more breathing time, and if it weren't for the Italians, Germany would have been defeated within 1943.

3R4NRC: On Rommel and Zhukov

Here we are comparing two commanders with a completely different mindset; Zhukov was a Deep Operational Warfare-oriented person, whilst Rommel was a Blitzkrieg oriented commander. With this said, it has been proven that Zhukov's commanding style would have destroyed the commanding style of Rommel. I can see this happening; firstly, accordingly to Clausewitz, Rommel would have concentrated all his forces (corps of around 40,000 men) on one point; Zhukov would then just come with an overwhelming amount of men, tanks and supplies, and would have forced Rommel into retreat due to the threat of encirclement, as Zhukov would have attacked on South and North of the Rommel-Salient. The Reich Army was Clausewitz-based, and they often came unprepared for new warfare. This was shown at Operation Uranus and the Winter Offensives of 1941, when Russian forces completely annihilated German forces; Rommel would have followed the same path as these German commanders (acting accordingly to their highly Clausewitz-oriented manner), and would have been annihilated. He would not have seen the new threat coming; no German Commander, including Hitler and Guiderian, could've predicted the deployment of 17 new divisions during the Winter of 1941. Operation Uranus and Little Saturn was as much unexpected. This was a war between two schools of warfare, and one prevailed.

Henceforth, the Resolution is Negated

All sources from last round
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 1 year ago
StalinIncarnate, You do know if the Germans hadn't been delayed by 5 weeks by the Italians, and hadn't wasted their most valuable field marshal (Rommel) on North Africa, Germany would've been fighting Moscow in November, Autumn, and Germany would've most likely won.
Posted by StalinIncarnate 1 year ago
One does not simply "Beat Russia".
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 2 years ago
Congratulations to Kc1999 for a wonderful debate and his/her victory, great work!

As for me, I'm up for ANY World War 2 debate.
Posted by Dynasty2468 2 years ago
Agree with u mate, those Italian thought that they were Roman
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took an interesting, to say the least, tack in defending this resolution, blaming the italians for the deployment of Rommel and blaming the loss on the eastern front on the lack of Rommel. Con rather clearly showed that that was not a valid view of the likely historical outcome, using a comprehensive tactical analysis and quality sources. Sourcing and arguments seems clear here. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.