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

The Soviet Union could have won World War 2 alone.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Ezpresso has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2018 Category: Education
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 292 times Debate No: 106736
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

HerecuzBoredom

Con

Assuming that all the events were the same but The Blitz and U-Boat campaigns broke the British will to fight on at the end of 1940. The Axis has achieved complete victory on the Western Front and now turns their attention towards the Soviet Union. Could the Soviet Union have defeated the Axis powers minus all the assistance and help from their western allies?
Ezpresso

Pro

Yes, the only way the Wehrmacht could have won on the Eastern front was through a quick, short victory, utilizing speed and tanks in order to punch through and encircle, to divide and conquer. Obviously, they failed, the Russian winter stopped their advance in it's tracks and made supplying such a far forward force almost impossible, here the Germans lost their initial initiative which had elicited them so much progress in the early months of Barbarossa. The Germans were forced into fighting a war of attrition, which was the worst possible outcome for their military situation in Russia. The German's attempts to re-gain the initiative failed at Kursk as it did in Operation Blue, they had lost their only real advantage; 'Blitzkrieg' (as the allies coined it) warfare.

The German industry and economy were not suited for a long war, and thus could not have survived, let alone functioned without the genius of Speer, the armaments minister of the third Reich. The Germans had a severe shortage of oil, thus being unable to power most of their mechanical forces, and having to not embark upon certain offensives for lack of fuel (it was worse in the West, where the Ardennes offensive failed primarily because of a lack of oil for the 6th SS). Russia on the other hand had thrice the population, and access to a wealth of natural resources within their own territory, such as the oil-rich Caucuses and the recently acquired Tungsten production in Finland. Their factories were often hidden away in Siberia, and thus were impervious to any German attempts to disrupt their industry. While the Russians were indeed receiving equipment from the allies, this was very limited and only covered utilities such as radios and canned meat, for the Russians still predominantly used their own, or captured German equipment in battle. After the eventual stalling of Case Blue, and the strategic ineptitude of Hitler, the daring of Stalin, in addition to his willingness to sacrifice millions of people, slowed the Germans to a halt, thus forcing them into a war of attrition that they could never have hoped of winning.
Debate Round No. 1
HerecuzBoredom

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting.

In our timeline Case Blue ends the same time as the US and the British is on the verge of securing Africa from the Axis and the rich oil fields in the Middle East. Same time as Kursk, The British having broke German codes informs the exact time and place of the battle which allows the Soviets to prepare, mean while the other fronts siphons units from the east to the west, over 60% of German air power is on the west attempting to defend Germany from the vast air forces of the US and the British [1]. The Invasion of Italy and her surrender begins.

The Soviet Union received from the west 92.7% of locomotive and rail cars, 2/3 of their truck strength, 13% of aircraft 8% in tanks of their total wartime production. They received over 50% of ordnance ammunition, artillery shells, mines ect, and almost 60% of aviation fuel as well. [2] [3]This enabled the Soviet Union to focus on tank and aircraft production instead of trains, jeeps, and trucks. The aid provided by the west was seen as absolutely vital to Soviet victories on the eastern front and this opinion is shared by Soviet Marshal G.K. Zhukov, Nikita Khrushchev, and Joseph Stalin. Apart from the material aid the west took out Italy and crippled German war effort, infrastructure, communication systems, transportation, and their oil resources.

However, in this new terrifying history Britain lost in the Blitz and surrenders to the Axis. the United States doubles down its isolationist policies and stays neutral. This changes the entire scope of the war irreversibly to the Axis advantage. It opens up the vast oilfields of Africa and Middle East to the Axis to augment what they already have in Europe, decreases the need to build up naval assets to focus on tanks, aircraft etc. Removes the future problems of deploying over 1 million troops to defend Germany from the air power of the west. Another million to battle the west across western Europe. Italy never falls to the west. Spain would even happily join the fight against the Soviet Union. Such circumstances sees the Soviet Union having to face 5-6 million more Axis troops not including what Spain would send to augment their strength there.

This would see the Axis having all the oil it needs to see their adventure into the Soviet Union succeed, super weapon projects, communication, transportation, wartime production etc untouched from the west. A vast increase in production levels. All their brilliant strategic commanders not being divided to battle elsewhere in the world. In turn, it would see the Soviet Union without information to know, when and where the enemy will attack and how many. A vast reduction in tank and aircraft production without the resource shipments from the west. More men pouring into the Soviet Union since there is no front in Africa, the Middle East, western Europe, and the Atlantic.

The burden of war of attrition would be harder on the Soviet Union then it would be on the Axis. Their staggering losses would increase significantly with less everything that they had in our timeline.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ezpresso 5 months ago
Ezpresso
You won
Posted by HerecuzBoredom 5 months ago
HerecuzBoredom
Anyone know how to block people that join debates and fails to finish them?
Posted by kitty_cat_LOL 5 months ago
kitty_cat_LOL
i have no idea what this thing is about
Posted by Knaveslayer99 5 months ago
Knaveslayer99
The purge of the Trotskyist sympathising Generals was a very well needed thing infact many Nazi officers have made comments that while they thought the purge weakened the USSR it infact made them stronger.
Posted by Zombieguy835 5 months ago
Zombieguy835
Yeah, while the USSR had the man power, Stalin purged generals, which led to the embarrassing defeat in the Winter War against Finland, so realistically, they would hold off the Axis in Stalingrad, but wouldn't be able to take down the Axis powers without Allied help.
Posted by Knaveslayer99 6 months ago
Knaveslayer99
The USSR would have easily still defeated the Nazis just due to their manpower if the Axis did somehow mythically stop Britain and occupied it they would have to be spending so many resources while also still fuelling a war effort against the USSR which not only would Nazi occupation of Soviet Soil be extremely hard to maintain due to a early form of Guerrilla warfare and unrest the Soviets would just keep coming and the Soviet Struggle would be a beacon for the fallen Western Governments of hope to win the war. Perhaps I shouldn't say it would easily due it as the Russians would lose far more then the 27 Million soldiers they did in our timeline. However Russian Blood would be too much.
Posted by ILikePie5 6 months ago
ILikePie5
Definitely not. Stalingrad would have easily fallen effectively ending their tank production
This debate has 6 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.