The USSR played a more important role in winning WWII in Europe than the western allies.
Debate Rounds (5)
start with my weakest argument.
My first argument is that it was the western countries, particularly Britain
and France that allowed Germany to become so powerful in the first place. Their
policy of appeasement allowed Hitler to gain land. They remained silent when
Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles and began building up their military.
In 1939, Germany felt unready for a war and it was but due to the incompetence
of the western allies, it defeated Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg,
Holland, and France in around an year. The Germans were outnumbered yet they
easily defeated multiple countries. Now Germany set its sight on Europe,
particularly the Soviet Union. The thing is that Nazi Germany could have been
stopped from the very beginning.
Pro's first argument actually works against him. He claims that the Western Allies (which I will abbreviate WA from now on) allowed Hitler to gain land and build up power, therefore the USSR was more important to victory. This is wrong for two reasons. The first reason is that the USSR did nothing to stop Hitler's initial land grabs either. They even went as far as to sign a non aggression pact with Hitler. The second reason that Pro's claim is wrong is that this does not show how the USSR played a more important role in winning WWII.
The next point that Pro makes is that, because of WA incompetence, Hitler took over most of Europe early on. There are three reasons that this claim is false. The first reason is that Germany was actually more prepared for war than most other countries in 1939. Hitler had been planning his conquest for years by then. The next reason is that the USSR once again did nothing to help here. The USSR just hid behind their non-aggression pact while the WA were at least trying to fight back. Finally, even if this were true, it does not show how the USSR's role was more important than that of the WA.
The main reason that the WA played a more important role in winning WWII than the USSR is the constant fighting with the Germans. As I pointed out earlier, the WA had been fighting Hitler since the very beginning while the USSR was still hiding behind its treaty. Even after being pushed out of Europe, the WA continued the fight in the air and in northern africa. It wasn't until latter that the USSR joined in the fighting. Even when the USSR was fighting, they only had Hitler in a frozen stalemate for a long time while the WA were invading in Italy and Normandy.
It is clear that the WA did more to win WWII because Pro has no solid arguments and the USSR did not actually fight the Germans as much.
Ok you are completely right. The Soviets signed a non-agression pact with Germany. You also say that this argument works against me. The reason that I posted this particular argument is to show that the western allies did not play the most important role in winning the war because they were partially responsible for starting it in the first place. I know this is not a strong argument but I would like to have four which will go in order from weakest to strongest. The Soviet Union signed a non-agression pact with Germany for several reasons. First of all, the USSR was not ready for a war. Also, it was none of Stalin's business what happened in France as long as Hitler did not attack him. The USA was part of the WA and it came into the war about half a year after the Soviet Union did. Just like the USSR, the United States wanted to stay out of the war. Statement that the USSR remained out of it all for some time makes no sense.
Ok now my second argument: it was the Soviet Union who captured Berlin. The fall of Berlin was what caused Hitler to commit suicide. The fall of Berlin was what finally ended the war in Europe. The western allies were 50 miles away from the German capital when it fell.
Although this is once again not a strong argument, it shows who destroyed Nazi Germany in the end.
Just because the USSR dealt the final blow does not mean that they did the most work or were the most important. I will refer you to this article about kill stealing to explain why this does not prove that the USSR was more important.
Unless Pro can give some better reasoning, this point falls.
On the standing arguments, I have two rebuttals.
The first rebuttal is that the identity of the instigator of a war does not determine who contributed more to winning. This debate is about who played a more important role in WINNING WWII, not STARTING it.
My second rebuttal is that the WA did not do more to cause the war than the USSR. Pro claims that the WA caused the war by allowing Hitler to break the treaty of Versailles and annex other countries. This is illogical because the USSR did nothing to stop these either. The USSR actually contributed more to the start of WWII because the convinced Hitler that they would not try to stop him. Hitler knew that the WA would oppose him, but if he thought the USSR would as well then he might not have started the war. With the USSR out of the picture, he would not have to fight a two front war.
Pro did not really address my argument, so it still stands.
I would advise the Pro to post all of his arguments in the next round instead of posting one/round. The way things are going, we would only have one round to argue your strongest arguments and five rounds to argue you weakest.
Yes, the Soviet Union did come in later in the war but the fact is that it did MORE to win the war than any other country.
The most significant and decisive battles were fought on the eastern front and when I say "significant" I'm not talking about some kind of D-Day where 150,000 allied troops assaulted a German front of 10,000 men. Nor am I talking about the Battle of the Bulge where Germany lost 160,000 men.
The Battles that I am talking about are the Battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk. For example lets look at Moscow: the largest battle in history. In the fields around Moscow, the axis suffered as many casualties in that single battle as they did throughout the three years they spent in Africa. Or the Battle of Stalingrad (the bloodiest in history) where the 800,000 axis soldiers were killed and 90,000 more were captured. The fact is that Stalingrad was the turning point in the war. Yes that's right, Stalingrad not D-day. By 1944, the outcome of the war had been decided in the east. The allied landing in Normandy had absolutely no affect on the outcome of the war. As for the Battle of Kursk (largest tank battle in history), it was definitely more significant than any of the Battles that the WA fought. Most of the remaining German armour was destroyed.
This proves that your statement that the western allies did more to defeat the axis because they were in the war from the very beginning is completely false. The fact is that the outcome of the war was decided in the east and the eastern front is where Germany suffered the most of its casualties. If you are still not convinced who won the second world war then my fourth argument will prove that...
Gondun forfeited this round.
Now speaking of Russia coming in late. Yes Russia did come late, but it also killed more axis troops in one year than the WA killed in three. In 1941 alone, the axis suffered 800,000-1,000,000,000 casualties and as a result, Germany moved 800,000 men to the eastern front and abandoned all plans for a future invasion of Britain.
But none of that says much which is where my fourth argument comes in: Russia killed by far more axis soldiers than the western allies did. Let's face it: Germany lost 80% of its men including some of its best divisions in the east. In addition to this, half the Italian casualties, most of the Hungarian casualties, all the Romanian, Slovakian, Spanish (yes they sent the blue division), Finnish, and Bulgarian casualties were on the eastern front. Many troops from Vichy France also perished in the east. Not only was Russia fighting the axis, it was also fighting itself. When the Germans invaded, the soviet republics of Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia , Lithuania, and Estonia who were very unhappy with Stalin's rule turned against Russia and treated the Germans as liberators. They joined the Wehrmacht, worked in concentration camps, and helped the Germans find Jews and Communists. Russia was up against a far greater number of axis troops.
You lack sufficient arguments. All you say is that Russia had a non-aggression pact and that the WA were fighting from the very beginning which doesn't make sense because the USA was also staying out of the war, even longer than the USSR. You don't have any solid facts in terms of how much damage the WA actually DID to Germany and the other axis countries. I basically win the debate unless you can come up with something.
But you really do surprise me.
Gondun forfeited this round.
Gondun forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.