The Instigator
STALIN
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jakeross6
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

The Soviets played a more important role in winning WWII in Europe than the western allies

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...
Jakeross6
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,069 times Debate No: 39424
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

STALIN

Pro

If you accept then state your arguments. I will respond in the next round.
Note to voters: please base your votes on whichever argument you find more convincing, not on personal beliefs or nationality.
Jakeross6

Con

I accept your debate while I run to grab some vodka- Thank God for the Mother Land and its potatoes! But seriously, I love world war two and this will be fun.
Debate Round No. 1
STALIN

Pro

Operation Barbarossa was the largest invasion in history. It consisted of over 4 million German, Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, and Finnish soldiers. Hitler believed that with the defeat of the Soviet Union, Britain would become demoralized and surrender. As the Germany advanced they destroyed the Soviet army in the millions. By the winter of 1941 however, the German advance could be measured only in feet, not miles. Operation Barbarossa failed with the Soviet victory at the Battle of Moscow. This victory was Hitler's first major defeat. In 1942, the axis launched Case Blue: the offensive at the Caucus oil-fields and the city of Stalingrad. The Battle of Stalingrad became the bloodiest battle in history where some 2 million German and Soviet men died. In addition to being Germany's largest defeat, this battle was also the turning point of the war in Europe. The Germans launched one final major offensive at Kursk in 1943 but were defeated and this defeat ended all chances of a German victory. On May 8, 1945 the Soviets finally captured Berlin and the war in Europe came to an end.

However before the Germans ever invaded the USSR, they successfully defeated Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece. They successfully conquered most of Europe in 2 short years. Yet Hitler failed to conquer Britain and Italy was a complete failure in securing Africa. Britain managed to hold out.

Neither Britain, nor the United States ever fought any major decisive battles against Germany. They never destroyed German divisions the way the Soviet Union did. For example, during the three years the western allies spent fighting Germany and Italy in Africa, they only defeated 500,000 axis soldiers. The Soviets destroyed 850,000 axis soldiers in the Battle of Stalingrad alone.

It is easy to prove that all the battles that had some effect on the outcome of the war were fought on the eastern front. The battles I am talking about are the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Battle of Kursk. Significance of these three battles:

Battle of Moscow: This was the largest battle in history and this axis defeat ended all hopes of a quick victory for Germany in the east.

Battle of Stalingrad: This battle was the decisive turning point of the war.

Battle of Kursk: When Hitler lost this battle, he lost all chances of winning the war.

The only major battle that the western allies fought was the Battle of the Bulge. By the time this battle was fought, Germany was down to boys and old men; there was no chance Germany was going to win the war. There were 3 million allied troops in France and only 200,000 Germans fighting them.

So here are my arguments which on why it was the Soviets who played the most important role in defeating Germany:

-80% of the German army was destroyed in the east.
-All of the decisive battles of the war were fought in the east.
-It was the Soviets who captured Berlin.
-Most of the Romanian, Hungarian, and Finnish divisions who perished during WWII were killed fighting the Soviets.
Jakeross6

Con

Very good opening arguments. However, Pro makes some historical mistakes.

PART ONE

Pro's Historical mistakes

1) Hitler invaded Russia in hopes to demoralize the British Isles.

This is a point that is simply not true. The Battle of Britain was the battle meant to demoralize the British, which failed to do its job. The real reasons for invading Russia were fear of attack by the Soviet Union and a want for the key resources in the Ukraine, oil fields to the south, and Hitler absolutely hated Stalin and considered them "subhuman" and had hated them long before the invasion of 1941[3].

2) The only major battle that the western allies fought was the Battle of the Bulge.

I am literally calling BS on this one. The Battle of El Alamein was one of the top ten decisive battles of WW2. It decided the war for the African front and set the stage for the invasion of italy[4]. The Battle of the Bulge was also a decisive battle that destroyed much of Germany's armies[4]. If America had been as unprepared as Russia was, we would have had major set backs in the war for Europe. However, America and her allies were prepared for the onslaught and repelled the attack. Another decisive Battle was that of Britain. If Britain had fallen, America would have had a much more difficult time taking back Western Europe and it might have even been impossible. The Soviets would have faced the full force of the better trained, better equipped, and frankly much better German army. In other words, the war would have been lost for the Soviet Union[4].

The pivotal failure of Operation Barbarossa

Germany Russia
Divisions 166 190 1 : 1.1
Personnel 4,306,8003,289,8511.3 : 1
Guns and mortars 42,601 59,787 1 : 1.4
Tanks (incl assault guns)4,171 15,687 1 : 3.8
Aircraft 4,389 11,537 1 : 2.6

This graph[6] shows the true numbers of the forces at the beginning of the operation. Now, for Germany to mass that many troops along the border, it took from December 1940-June 1941 when the attack was carried out. It was originally planned for May[2], but Hitler delayed it to June. This was his first mistake.

Hitler's mistakes.

A) Timing is everything in war, and the timing of May 1941 for the Invasion start was perfect to avoid the harsh Russian winter. If Hitler had invaded then, he still would have destroyed Russia and possibly even defeated the Russians at Moscow. This is because the only thing that turned the tide in the USSR was the weather. Hitler, much like Napoleon, went in unprepared for the winter. In Germany, they started taking all fur coats from the Jews and the poor and shipping them East so their soldiers wouldn't freeze to death in the winter. The weather also made getting supplies from Germany, to Poland, then finally to the Front lines near impossible. They couldn't fly enough in, they couldn't maintain a good supply line and there wasn't enough food to eat due to the Russian tactic of "scorched earth" which had also been done with Napoleon and was to destroy everything the Germans could use before they retreated.

B) One of the most detrimental mistakes made by Hitler was the idea to split his armies and go after two objectives: Stalingrad and the Oil fields in Southern Russia. If he had dedicated all of his forces to the attack Stalingrad, he would have won the city and then Moscow. However, his decision and early declaration of victory in Stalingrad were one of the many factors that led to his ultimate downfall.

C) Due to the Brutality of the Germans in Russia, the citizens rose up and pestered the German supply lines. That, along with the distance of the front lines of Russia from Germany, was yet another crippling blow.

These, among many other mistakes, were the factors contributing to Operation Barbarossa's failure.

However, the Soviet generals were terrible and their tactics ineffective

A) When the German tanks rolled across the border, they met much resistance from the 3.5 million Russian Soldiers, and, using less tanks, airplanes and artillery guns but with a comparably large advantage in numbers. Despite detailed reconnaissance reports and no effort by the Germans to hid their intentions (except for details like when, where, and how[2]), the Soviets were taken completely by surprise. Stalin had never expected Hitler to attack the Soviet Union before England was destroyed. He thought that it would be stupid to open a two front war. So he ignored multiple indicators of the impending invasion. The result was devastating. Not only was the Russian Air Force almost completely annihilated, but their guns were destroyed, their armies lost, and their resources gone. The only effective thing the new generals and those that survived the Communist purge of the 1930's actually did was the scorched earth tactic that had left Napoleon stranded in the cold as well. The generals were hardly effect at any of the counter attacks that were attempted and for the summer of 1941, the Great Soviet Union, the Motherland, lay in ruins and ashes.

B) In Stalingrad, it was not the Soviets' great military strategies of "Do not retreat or we kill you." or "flood them with soldiers, with or without a rifle" (Many soviets did not go into battle with any weapon. They had to pick one up off the ground.), but it was instead the idiocy of Hitler in splitting his armies and relying on resources he could find in Stalingrad, as well as the fact that his tanks couldn't work in the cold, his armies lacked proper clothing for the winter, and he rarely listened to his generals.

C) Soviets were careless with their soldiers lives and this is shown by their 14,000,000 person loss [7], which was many more times the American losses of 416,800 soldiers and airmen[7]. This low American numbers was despite the fact that America was fighting two fronts rather than one! We had better tactics, better trained soldiers, and better technology which prevented the staggering losses America could have taken. The Soviets, on the other hand, threw their soldiers into battle poorly equipped, badly trained, and in terrible situations under the threat of death by execution regiments if they retreated and horror stories of treatment of POW's by the Germans. This tactic was only effective because of the mistakes made by Germany.

In Conclusion of part one of my argument

In conclusion, it has been shown that the Soviets' victories were only due to German mistakes. The victory in Eastern Europe by the Red Army was not because of superior tactics, technology, or anything that usually wins a war. It was really due to the Germans' overconfidence in their win, poor conduct with civilians, distance in supplies, and being unprepared for the challenges ahead.

PART TWO

Importance of the Western Allies

A) Western aid to the Soviets

If the Soviets had not received the massive amounts of material aid by Britain and America, Soviet Russia would have fallen to the Nazi Armies when the Winter finally let up in 1942 [8][9].

"American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:
"pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941 (paid for in gold)
first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)
fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered on the 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. On 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was terminated."[8]

Here we see the massive time between start and stop of the lend-lease program, a program where America became the source of supplies to a war torn world.

"Some 3,964,000 tons of goods were shipped by the Arctic route; 7% was lost, while 93% arrived safely.[21] This constituted some 23% of the total aid to the USSR during the war." [8]
That was just from America via one of three routes, the Arctic Route.

If I must, I will make more points about this in further rounds.

B) If the Allies had not been fighting Germany in the West, then Russia would have had to deal with the full might of Germany to deal with. The petty "holding out" of Great Britain and her empire in London and North Africa were pivotal points that kept Russia alive. When Germany provided aid to the Italians in Africa, this caused the delay that set Germany into the Cold winter of WW2 [2].

In Conclusion

I apologize for the short length of part two, but I must conclude now.

All I had to do was show that without the Western Allies, Russia would have failed. It doesn't matter that the most pivotal battles took place in Russia, all I am here to show is that they were equal importance to the victory over Germany and that Hitler created his own demise rather than Russian minds and guns being victorious. Russia was only the theater and not the perpetrator of Hitlers end. Without the West, he would have died.

Sources

1. http://www.academia.org...
2. http://suite101.com...
3. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
4. http://tendecisivebattles.webs.com...
5. http://www.theatlantic.com...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://en.wikipedia.org...
9. http://lend-lease.airforce.ru...
Debate Round No. 2
STALIN

Pro

I agree, I did make several mistakes in me earlier writing. I probably was just not thinking enough.

However you also made several errors in your history and in your thinking.

-One of the reasons Hitler invaded Russia because he believed that the British hoped that Russia would come to save them. After Russia is defeated, Britain would see sense and make peace with Germany.
-The Battle of the Bulge was the most important land battle that the western allies fought. The battle of Britain however was more important in its effects on the outcome of the war. If the allies had lost at El Alamein, then the Germans would still have lost the war. All the battles that the western allies fought only involved a few hundred thousands men at most.
-Hitler could not have started Operation Barbarossa sooner because he needed to defeat Yugoslavia and Greece.
-If Hitler had not split his forces on his offensive toward Stalingrad and the Caucus oil fields, he would still have lost the battle; Russia would simply have to move troops from the Caucuses.
-Stalin was almost as brutal as Hitler was. When you talk about the citizens rising up against the Germans, you need to remember that millions of those people hated Stalin as much as they would hate Hitler. For example, until the people of Ukraine really found out what the Nazis were, they treated them as liberators.
-And you largely exaggerate the effects of American supplies to the Soviet Union. I looked at your sources. It did not say that 23% of total Soviet production came from America via the Arctic route. It said that out of all the lend-lease supplies sent to the USSR, 23% of those supplies came via this route. Reread your source.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I know for a fact that American supplies made up 15% of total Soviet production and that by 1943, the Soviets were producing 3 times as much as Germany. Without American supplies, the Soviets might have lost or they might not have, we will never know.
-The Russian winter helped, but it was the Red Army who defeated Germany in the end.
-You say that America was prepared for WWII and that it had better technology than the USSR did. The first part is completely false, the second part is somewhat true. In 1939, Poland had a larger army than the United States did. America's army when it was attacked by the Japanese was ~200,000 men. The Soviets on the other hand had an army of 7 million, 5 million of which were in the west. Japan could not invade the United States in the way Germany invaded the USSR. This gave America time to build up their industry and army. America was protected by two oceans and therefor isolated from where the main fighting was happening. The second part about America having better technology is both true and false. The American navy was perhaps the strongest in the world and American planes were definitely stronger than those of the USSR. On the other hand, the Soviet T-34 tank was the best in the world 1940-1942. Later Soviet tanks such as the
KV-1 and IS-2 were also stronger than anything the USA had. In addition to this, the Soviet artillery was the best in the world.

OK now here are my arguments:

1. 8 out of 10 of all German soldiers who died during WWII died on the eastern front. The German invasion of the Soviet Union was the largest invasion in history with over 4 million men and the battles on the eastern front were some of the largest and bloodiest in history.

2. Most of the Romanian, Slovakian, Finnish, Croatian, and Hungarian soldiers died on the eastern front. Italy also lost thousands of men in the east. These countries were all allied to Germany and provided a third of its manpower for the invasion of the Soviet Union.

3. The Soviets captured Berlin. This was the bloodiest battle in history second only to Stalingrad and it was the Soviet capture of Berlin that caused Hitler to commit suicide and thus effectively end the war in Europe.

4. The western allies were the ones who allowed WWII to start. France and Britain forced Germany to sign the treaty of Versailles in 1919 which would ensure that Germany live in poverty for years and later look to Hitler as the solution to their problems. When Germany broke the treaty Britain and France who wanted to avoid another war and decided to do nothing about it. This allowed Germany to build up the most powerful army in the world and begin annexing Austria, Czechoslovakia, and other territories. And then Germany and Italy both sent forces to help the Fascists in Spain... The Soviets were there opposing them but where was Britain and France? In 1939 Italy invaded Albania and Ethiopia. What did Britain and France do? Nothing! As a matter of fact, in order to invade the Ethiopia, Italy went through the British controlled Suez Canal. It was only after Germany wanted the Danzig corridor in Poland which it had had before they were defeated in WWI that Britain and France signed a pact with Poland to defend against German aggression. When Hitler was refused his request he decided to invade Poland. And once again, where were the British and French? Hiding behind their Maginot line. They let their ally bleed to death, just like they did when Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Churchill and Roosevelt agreed to open a second front in France in 1942. Stalin was waiting for this front, but instead he got a German offensive in the south toward the Caucus oilfields and the city of Stalingrad. After the western allies did not open a second front in 1942, they agreed to invade France in 1943 and once again they did not invade. It was only in 1944, 11 months before the end of the war when it was clear that Germany was going to lose, that the British and Americans finally invaded.
Jakeross6

Con

Rebuttals

"One of the reasons Hitler invaded Russia because he believed that the British hoped that Russia would come to save them. After Russia is defeated, Britain would see sense and make peace with Germany."
The main reason for invading Russia was Hitler's want for room, considering Communists subhuman, and the fact that Hitler needed resources for his Country. The Battle of Britain was what really was meant to discourage the English. You don't invade a country as large as Russia for the sole purpose of dissuading another, despite the fact that it is a possibility of a benefit.

"All the battles that the western allies fought only involved a few hundred thousands men at most."
Just because the Western battles involved less people does not make them less fierce or important in the tide of the war.

"If Hitler had not split his forces on his offensive toward Stalingrad and the Caucus oil fields, he would still have lost the battle; Russia would simply have to move troops from the Caucuses"
With just half of his forces, Hitler was able to take over 90% of the city until repelled by the Russian Forces once the winter took hold of Russia. If Hitler had used all of his forces on it, then He would not only control 100% of the city, he would have had the resources he needed and would have been well on his way to capturing Moscow simply because he would have controlled the city.

"Stalin was almost as brutal as Hitler was. When you talk about the citizens rising up against the Germans, you need to remember that millions of those people hated Stalin as much as they would hate Hitler. For example, until the people of Ukraine really found out what the Nazis were, they treated them as liberators."
Actually, Stalin was much much worse than Hitler. He killed 23 million of his own people before he died. Hitler only killed 12 million. However, this does nothing to disprove my point that brutality of Germans caused uprisings. The people attacked his supply lines.

"And you largely exaggerate the effects of American supplies to the Soviet Union. I looked at your sources. It did not say that 23% of total Soviet production came from America via the Arctic route. It said that out of all the lend-lease supplies sent to the USSR, 23% of those supplies came via this route. Reread your source."
It says "Of total Aid given." Not that it was all of Russia's production. However, it was crucial in the beginning as all factories were destroyed and it took Russia having supplies to regain those factories that were not. America enabled Russia to have its counter-attack(s. Many were not successful).

"The Russian winter helped, but it was the Red Army who defeated Germany in the end."
This is true, but the Cold winter is the only thing that stalled Hitler's attack. If he had invaded earlier or any warmer time earlier than June, the Blitzkrieg would have captured all of Eastern Europe.

"You say that America was prepared for WWII and that it had better technology than the USSR did. The first part is completely false, the second part is somewhat true. In 1939, Poland had a larger army than the United States did. America's army when it was attacked by the Japanese was ~200,000 men."
I said America was Prepared for the Battle of the Bulge, not that it was prepared for a World War! It was one of the greatest feats in history for America to bounce into war, train its soldiers, and make the equipment as fast as it did. I said that if they had been as unprepared as Russia, they would have had major setbacks in the war. However, they were able to repel the strong German Offensive.

"The Soviets on the other hand had an army of 7 million, 5 million of which were in the west. Japan could not invade the United States in the way Germany invaded the USSR. This gave America time to build up their industry and army. America was protected by two oceans and therefor isolated from where the main fighting was happening. The second part about America having better technology is both true and false. The American navy was perhaps the strongest in the world and American planes were definitely stronger than those of the USSR. On the other hand, the Soviet T-34 tank was the best in the world 1940-1942. Later Soviet tanks such as the
KV-1 and IS-2 were also stronger than anything the USA had. In addition to this, the Soviet artillery was the best in the world."

Yet the Russians were caught off guard and almost completely defeated by the German blitzkrieg. Stalin refused to acknowledge the fact that Hitler was going to invade. Germany almost destroyed Russia because they were unprepared to deal with the German onslaught.

Rebuttals to his arguments

1) The only reason the casualties were so high was because there were many people involved in the fighting. When taking total military deaths by both the Soviet Union and Germany, Soviets had 14,000,000 Military deaths. Germany had 5,500,000 military deaths. The Russians mainly fought Germans, so if you divide Russian Deaths by German deaths, you get a ratio of 1:2.5. That is for every one German that died, there were 2-3 Russians dead. Now, under your figure of 8/10 German military deaths being in Russia, we can calculate the new Ratio. 80% percent of German figure comes out to 4,400,000 deaths, which, divided by the Russian figure of 14,000,000 deaths makes a ratio of 1:3.1. Or, there were 3 Dead Russians for every 1 dead German. This shows that Hitlers strategies and technology were superior because they were able to kill so many them while low on supplies and running low of soldiers. The only thing that stopped the most (Con admits) Powerful army in the world was the Russian Winter and nothing the Generals did.

2) Yes, many soldiers died in Russia. We see that. But Russian Generals had little to with that and Hitlers mistakes destroyed them.

3) Hitler Knew the allies were coming in from the West and before the Soviets actually attacked Berlin, he had lied dead in his bunker. This bloody battle was actually a race for Nuclear Technology that the West was not willing to lose that many men for.

4) The invasion was quick, destructive, and painful. The Winter following that fateful in 1939 was months of preparations by the Allies. They did everything in their power to avoid the coming war. Appeasement, deals, pacts. Anything. And as for the invasion of France, America was only able to do that invasion in 1944 because of the need for preparations and it was tied up in the Pacific. The allies actually wanted to do the main invasion in Italy from Africa, but the debate about where to do the invasion plus circumstances prevented the allies from acting until much later. The debate was if the allies invaded Italy, they would be able to get to Eastern Europe as well and by doing so, stop the Soviet progression. France was not considered until Stalin suggested it to ease the pressure on his front. Operation Overlord was in need of most of the Allies forces, mainly American Forces which were tied up in the Pacific until they became available in 1944. This is why they waited to invade.

A new Argument

The USSR helped Hitler establish himself

In 1939, Hitler was becoming very successful in Europe. His dream of a German world was starting to become a reality, and he needed to be stopped right then and there if millions of lives were to be saved. What exactly did Russia do? Did they instantly invade and disrupt Hitler's operations? Sadly, no. Instead, they signed a pact with Germany, called the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which was a non-aggression treaty [1]. Hitler and Stalin even worked together to take Poland out, splitting it right down the middle. The reader should, at this point, be able to realize that Stalin wasn't trying to win a war, but trying to further himself and his country.

Stalin was simply waiting for WW2 to come along, so that he could seize the opportunity to take control of all of Europe. He just needed a spark to start it, and Hitler was that spark. According to Viktor Suvorov, "based on new documents and research, Mr. Suvorov argues that Stalin had a grand design to conquer all of Europe. Furthermore, far from being duped by Hitler, Stalin supported Nazi Germany as part of his offensive strategy ". Once Hitler entered the scene in Europe, Stalin and the USSR jumped at the chance to help them. They trained German soldiers in Russia and allowed them to practice using their poison gas and train soldiers to drive tanks and fly planes. [2- covers both the quote and the following fact]

Hitler's cruel and ruthless war machine was started only with the help of he USSR, so this puts them at a major disadvantage for winning the "Most pivotal to winning WW2" award. Stalin is even How can they be considered pivotal in winning when they were pivotal in starting World War Two!

We are comparing USSR to the Western Allies. It doesn't make sense to say that two countries which did more to actually end the war wasn't as critical as one country which did more to start the war.

Sources

1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
2) http://www.academia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
STALIN

Pro

Hitler believed that if he successfully defeated Russia, the Britain would lose all hope and make peace. This was one of the many reasons for Operation Barbarossa.

The only Battle that the Western Allies fought which had any effect on the outcome of the war was the Battle of Britain. If the western allies had lost at El Alamein, Hitler would still have won the war. The Battle of the Atlantic was minor, German U-boats sank many allies cargo ships headed for Britain, but even with this, Britain was still well supplied. D-day and the Battle of the Bulge both happened when it was clear Germany would lose the war. However there were three battles that the USSR fought that determined the outcome of the war. The first battle was the Battle of Moscow. This was the first time that Hitler was pushed back. The Battle of Moscow saved Russia from defeat, just like the Battle of Britain saved Britain from defeat. Then there was the Battle of Stalingrad. Had the Germans won this battle, they would have had unlimited oil. In addition, this would be almost certain death for Britain since from the Caucuses, Germany could capture the middle eastern oil fields and from there link up with Rommel in Egypt and strike at India. The Battle of Stalingrad saved both the USSR and the British empire. In addition to this, Stalingrad completely changed the course of the war. The final battle that had a huge effect on the outcome of the war, was the Battle of Kursk. This defeat for Germany ended any chances for Germany to win the war.

Hitler split his offensive toward Stalingrad and the Caucus oil fields. This is not the reason he lost however. The reason Hitler lost was because he committed to a type of fighting that the German army was not built for. In the house to house fighting in Stalingrad, the Russians performed much better than the Germans. You also state that Hitler had sent half of his forces to take the Caucuses. This is not true. Hitler sent 75% of his forces which he deployed for Case Blue to attack Stalingrad and in addition to this, he repeatedly sent forces from the Caucuses to reinforce Stalingrad. Just because you have a split army when you attack, this doesn't mean your going to fail. The reason the Soviets won at Stalingrad was because of the major Soviet encirclement involving over a million men which completely trapped Paulus's 6th army inside the city. Who cares of the Germans controlled 90% of the city. They still lost and would have lost even if Hitler had brought a few more divisions from the Caucuses. The Soviets would simply launch counter offensives from the south, the same way as they did from the north. I would also like to say that if not for these offensives from the north which tied up most of the German army for a long time enabling the Russians to reinforce the city, the Soviets would have lost Stalingrad.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Stalin was not as brutal as Hitler. The number of people Stalin killed ranges from 20 million to 50 million. And Hitler did not kill 12 million people. He killed 6 million Poles, 6 million Ukrainians, 1 million Yugoslavians, and that's only a small portion of Europe. Altogether, 17 million Soviet civilians were killed by the Germans. Hitler killed some 30 million people. And there were many people who fought both the Russians and the Germans.

American supplies were important since many Russian factories had been destroyed. On the other hand, many factories were moved east beyond the Urals. It is difficult to argue whether without these supplies the Soviets would have won or would have been defeated but what we can be sure about is that American supplies did not kill German soldiers; the Red Army did that. America fought the war in Europe with American supplies and Russian men. A war is won with men, supplies simply help. The military role of the western allies was insignificant. Even if you put Lend-Lease supplies on top of that, the role of the Soviet Union would still by more important.

Germany was forced to delay Operation Barbarossa because Italy needed help defeating Greece and Germany also decided to invade Yugoslavia. There is no reason to speculate on what might happen if the Germans had invaded a few weeks earlier. The Soviets still would have had a good chance of winning. If Germany ever entered Moscow, they would be fighting the same type of battle that they did at Stalingrad. The Soviets had built very strong defenses on every street of Moscow.

"I said America was Prepared for the Battle of the Bulge."
The western allies were caught completely unprepared for the German offensive.

"However, they were able to repel the strong German Offensive."
That is not really surprising since the western allies had 3 million men and the German offensive consisted of 200,000 men.

Saying that Hitler only lost in Russia due to his mistakes is complete nonsense. And also the winter was not the only reason Russia won the war. "The only thing that stopped the most (Con admits) Powerful army in the world was the Russian Winter and nothing the Generals did." <-----That is also a complete lie. Lets look at the western allies for a minute... Germany only lost the Battle of Britain because Hitler ordered the Germans planes to bomb London and other major cities instead of finishing of the RAF. The RAF was all but destroyed when Hitler changed tactics and began bombing cities. If the RAF was destroyed, Germany could then successfully invade England. No more D-Day then:( Had Hitler not made that mistake then his chances of winning the in the east would have been much higher. Then you talk about Hitlers mistakes. And i agree, his mistakes cost hundreds of thousands of casualties that could have been avoided. But what about Stalin's mistakes? His mistakes cost millions of pointless casualties for the Red Army. In 1938, he purged 8 of his best Generals and replaced them with party members who knew nothing about fighting. When WWII started, Stalin took personal control which resulted in 6 million Soldiers dying needlessly in 1941 alone. One main reason the Soviets won the Battle of Moscow was because Stalin gave control of the army to an experienced Marshal-Georgy Zhukov. It was this same marshal that successfully defeated the Germans at Stalingrad and at Kursk. Other experienced generals such as Konev, Vasilevsky, and Chuikov eventually took command of the Red Army and by late 1942 the Soviet War machine matched the effectiveness of the German army. So if you going to say that Hitler was responsible for those "4,400,000 deaths" then I might as well say Stalin's mistakes, being MUCH greater were responsible for 11 million Red Army deaths. But none of that really matters. The fact is that 4,400,000 (80%) of the Germans soldiers were shot by the Red Army, not by Hitler; just like 11 million Red Army soldiers were killed by German bullets, not by Stalin. So your argument that Hitler lost the war in the east due to his "mistakes" is complete nonsense. If somebody besides Stalin had been in charge, the Soviets could have defeated Germany alone with the army that they mobilized throughout WWII - 25 million.

The Soviets were miles closer to Berlin than than the western allies were and Stalin purposely ordered the city to be encircled to keep the Americans and British out.

"Operation Overlord was in need of most of the Allies forces, mainly American Forces which were tied up in the Pacific until they became available in 1944. This is why they waited to invade."<-----FALSE! They could have landed in France instead of Italy and still succeeded. in 1943: Germany had few men stationed in France. During the landings at Normandy, western allies lost 12,000 men. At the bulge, they lost only 80,000 men. The western allies could have succeeded in invading France with just a million men.

So your saying that Stalin should have declared war on Germany and sided with Britain and France in 1939? The reason Stalin allowed the Germans to train on Soviet land was because he did not consider them to be the enemy. After all, lets remember who was fighting the Soviets in the Russian Civil War. The British and French did not want to see Russia become communist and gave aid to the white army. Even after Stalin died, the Soviets never forgot about that. Your new argument is alright... but my argument that I posted earlier on how the west allowed Fascism to spread stronger. You state that the Soviet Union planned to invade Europe...but lets stick to things that actually did happen. The western allies allowed Hitler to break the treaty of Versailles and rebuild the German army. The western allies allowed Germany to enslave Austria and Czechoslovakia and to send aid to Spain. Britain and France allowed Italy to conquer Albania and Ethiopia. Why did they let Germany do this? The answer is simple. They were too scared to fight another war, even if that war only involved 50,000 deaths. Instead they waited and instead of a small war happening, they allowed the largest war in history to kill tens of millions of people. Sure the Soviets signed a pact with Germany and invaded a few countries, but Britain and France were the ones who allowed the second world war to start. The west appeased Germany and only stopped doing so when it was too late. They signed an alliance with Poland in the case of a German invasion, and when the Germans did invaded, Britain and France did nothing. I agree, the Soviets also helped start WWII, but it was the western allies that allowed Germany to build tanks, planes, ships, right in front of their eyes. Sure a few tankers and pilots were trained in the east, but most of the German military was built because the western allies allowed it.

Conclusion: the Soviets defeated most of the axis forces. The most they ever received in return were some supplies. Without the USSR, the outcome of the war would certainly have been different
Jakeross6

Con

Rebuttals

"Hitler believed that if he successfully defeated Russia, the Britain would lose all hope and make peace. This was one of the many reasons for Operation Barbarossa."
I have grown tired of hearing this. In order for this disputed idea to be accepted into the debate any longer, it would have had to have a source.
'We knew that in two years' time, that is by the end of 1942, beginning of 1943, the English would be ready, the Americans would be ready, the Russians would be ready too, and then we would have to deal with all three of them at the same time.... We had to try to remove the greatest threat from the East.... At the time it seemed possible.' [1]
This quote is from major Hubert Menzel. Here he quotes one of the real reasons that Germany attacked Russia.

Hitler split his offensive toward Stalingrad and the Caucus oil fields. This is not the reason he lost however. The reason Hitler lost was because he committed to a type of fighting that the German army was not built for. In the house to house fighting in Stalingrad, the Russians performed much better than the Germans. You also state that Hitler had sent half of his forces to take the Caucuses. This is not true. Hitler sent 75% of his forces which he deployed for Case Blue to attack Stalingrad and in addition to this, he repeatedly sent forces from the Caucuses to reinforce Stalingrad. Just because you have a split army when you attack, this doesn't mean your going to fail."
Once again, no sources and nor did I say that numbers were the reason, but the initial force of the German Armies attacking Stalingrad would have made it fall.

"Stalin was not as brutal as Hitler. The number of people Stalin killed ranges from 20 million to 50 million. And Hitler did not kill 12 million people. He killed 6 million Poles, 6 million Ukrainians, 1 million Yugoslavians, and that's only a small portion of Europe. Altogether, 17 million Soviet civilians were killed by the Germans. Hitler killed some 30 million people. And there were many people who fought both the Russians and the Germans."
From [1]:
In the USSR, meantime, Stalin's ruthless approach to punishing ethnic collaborators in the Soviet Union meant that whole ethnic nations were forcibly exiled to Siberia as punishment for the small number of collaborators in their midst. One of the ethnic groups who suffered most were the Kalmyks from the steppe south of Stalingrad. Stalin ordered every ethnic Kalmyk, including women and children, to be 'relocated' to even more remote regions of the Soviet Union.

Whole families were crammed onto insanitary transport trains. Many didn't survive the long journey. Officially, 93,000 Kalmyks, 68,000 Karachai people, 500,000 Chechens, 340,000 Balkars and 180,000 Tartars were deported. The figures are almost certainly underestimates."


All of that for just a small number of collaborators in their midst. This is disregarding the purge of the 30's and those he caused to die by not allowing civilians to leave Stalingrad. In Moscow, 8000 Civilians were executed for being "cowardly"[1].
So, we see that Stalin was a worse man and more brutal to his own civilians than Hitler ever was. To kill 50 million people compared to 30 million(both of these numbers unknown due to lack of sources!) is still outrageously more brutal.

"American supplies were important since many Russian factories had been destroyed. On the other hand, many factories were moved east beyond the Urals."
Once again, no sources. However, he cedes to the point that American was important to Russia in the early stages of the war to the East, arguably the most decisive stage of the Eastern war.

"Germany was forced to delay Operation Barbarossa because Italy needed help defeating Greece and Germany also decided to invade Yugoslavia. There is no reason to speculate on what might happen if the Germans had invaded a few weeks earlier."
This delay saved Russia and was caused by American and British attacks in the African Front causing Italy the need to cry for help. It was still a mistake by Hitler to help this ally as it would have been easier to defend Italy from invasion rather than fight the allies in the desert.

The western allies were caught completely unprepared for the German offensive.
No sources, nothing. However, it doesn't matter because this battle destroyed the reserves of Germany:
"The Ardennes battle drives home the lesson that a large-scale offensive by massed armour has no hope of success against an enemy who enjoys supreme command of the air. Our precious reserves had been expended, and nothing was available to ward off the impending catastrophe in the east." [2]

"The RAF was all but destroyed when Hitler changed tactics and began bombing cities. If the RAF was destroyed, Germany could then successfully invade England."
This is wrong. Even if the Germans had gained air superiority, the Royal Navy still would have posed a threat.
"Hitler did in fact order preparations to be made for an invasion of England, but he was always half-hearted in his desire to mount a large seaborne landing. Germany, unlike Britain, was not a sea power and the Channel was a formidable obstacle. Even if air superiority could be gained, there remained the powerful British Navy. And there was another, ideological, reason why Hitler was not fully committed to invading Britain. For him, it would have been a distraction. Britain contained neither the space, nor the raw materials, that he believed the new German Empire needed."

" They were too scared to fight another war, even if that war only involved 50,000 deaths. Instead they waited and instead of a small war happening, they allowed the largest war in history to kill tens of millions of people. Sure the Soviets signed a pact with Germany and invaded a few countries, but Britain and France were the ones who allowed the second world war to start."

Pro, they were very afraid to enter another war, as all nations should be. They were in the middle of depressions, their people were still grieving over the loss of their men in World War 1, and they had only just gotten their industry back in working order. Besides this, there was view that was slowly being accepted that in WW1, Wilson's 14 points should have been used and the world was to rough on Germany. Though the following policy of Appeasement allowed Hitler to grow strong, it was the Russians who helped to make him strong. They helped invade Poland, round up Jews and guerrilla fighters, as well as allowing them to train on Soviet land and even trained German pilots! The West may have allowed the war to happen, but Russia was the one responsible for enabling it to happen and did it all in self-interest. This is not the country that deserves 100% credit for helping finish the war when it deserves at least 50% credit in starting the war.

Conclusion

Pro simply asserts many of his points without backing them up with evidence or sources. He fails to show how Hitler's mistakes could not have caused the Russian victory. Hitler refused to listen to his generals in most cases and because of this lost the war. Also, everything Russia was able to do was because the West was able to keep Hitler's forces occupied in Africa and later in France. Plus the benefits of the American aid to Soviet Russia was fundamental in stopping the German advance. In all, The West was just as important to the end of the war as Soviet Russia was.

Sources
1) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
2) http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Epiphron 3 years ago
Epiphron
Firstly, Hitler did believe that England would join him in fighting the Russians. Hitler believed the Germans and British were Anglo-Saxon relatives and they should be united. Obvious proof for this was Hitler allowing the British army to escape at Dunkirk.

Second saying that the Allies were able to keep the Germans busy in Africa and France is extremely laughable. I assume when you refer to France your referencing the year 1944. but the funny thing is Germany was already falling back out of Russia in 1943.

Third even comparing the British Contribution to the Soviets is a waste of time. If Hitler really wanted to conquer England it wouldn't have been to hard. But rather he threw almost all his forces at the soviets.

In the end without the Soviet Union taking all the heat the Allies Britain and US would have been decimated.

I cant vote yet since only 2 debates are finished but if I could id vote for PRO
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
RFD with corrections...

I'm approaching this from a very unbiased position as I'm not really inclined to support the Soviet Union or the Allies. Pro initiated this debate and claimed that the Soviet had a more important role than the Allies. He provided good reasons to support that such as the major battles fought against Hitler by the Red Army and the counts of death of the Germans on Soviet lands. This I found very convincing. However, Con undermined such battles by showing how the weather helped the Russians win in the battle of Stalingrad and showed the aids given to USSR from the West. He also showed how the mistakes of the Nazi army made it lose in such battles. This all was to undermine the role of the soviet army, which both debaters agreed wasn't as strategic as it should be due to the 1:3 death ratio. Con also gave out the role of the allies in other battles in Africa and Europe so that a comparison is made between two roles. At the end of this debate, I find myself confused what side to support due to the convincing reasons supplied by both debaters, so I rather let arguments be a tie and focus on the sources.

Pro repeated a couple of statements which were points of disagreement and yet he didn't provide the needed sources for them. For example, "Hitler believed that if he successfully defeated Russia, the Britain would lose all hope and make peace. This was one of the many reasons for Operation Barbarossa." There was not one source supporting this from Pro, while Con mad a counter-argument which was supported by a quote from major Hubert Menzel on why Germany attacked Russia. I understand that this was a controversial point, but I don't see why Pro forced this as a fact and repeated it many times without sourcing it. Hence, I award Con the sources for being careful to source important arguments in the debate.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
I'm approaching this from a very unbiased position as I'm not really inclined to support the Soviet Union or the Allies. Pro initiated this debate and claimed that the Soviet had a more important role than the Allies. He provided good reasons to support that such as the major battles fought against Hitler by the Red Army and the counts of death of the Germans on Soviet lands. This I found very convincing. However, Con undermined such battles by showing how the weather helped the Germans win in the battle of Stalingrad and showed the aids given to USSR from the West. He also showed how the mistakes of the Nazi army made it lose in such battles. This all was to undermine the role of the soviet army, which both debaters agreed wasn't as strategic as it should be due to the 1:3 death ratio. Con also gave out the role of the allies in other battles in Africa and Europe so that a comparison is made between two roles. At the end of this debate, I find myself confused what side to support due to the convincing reasons supplied by both debaters, so I rather let arguments be a tie and focus on the sources.

Pro repeated a couple of statements which were points of disagreement and yet he didn't provide the needed sources for them. For example, "Hitler believed that if he successfully defeated Russia, the Britain would lose all hope and make peace. This was one of the many reasons for Operation Barbarossa." There was not one source supporting this from Pro, while Con mad a counter-argument which was supported by a quote from major Hubert Menzel on why Germany attacked Russia. I understand that this was a controversial point, but I don't see why Pro forced this as a fact and repeated it many times without sourcing it. Hence, I award Con the sources for being careful to source important arguments in the debate.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
6 Months is way to long. The time you set it at is a good time.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
I'm glad you liked the debate.
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
good job guys, I will read in my free times, I have not read yet, now among my favorites.

before reading, I think western was more important, after reading I will comment who I agreed with.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Your right, I should have set voting time to six months. Good to know in the future.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
I keep scrolling back over this debate and we both had really freakin long arguments. Takes forever to scroll up and down I hope someone is willing to read this and vote effectively. We may have scared off the voters, Stalin!
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
Debate. Is over. Neither could have won without the other.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Russia defeated 80% of the German army. The western allies defeated 20%. In addition the western allies gave the Soviet Union many supplies. Ok so fine, lets say Russia played a 70% role and the western allies a 30% role. Either way, the contributions of the USSR and the western allies are in no shape or form equal.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
STALINJakeross6Tied
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:02 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.