The USSR was more pivotal to winning WW2 in Europe than the USA and Britain were
Debate Rounds (4)
Since no definition of pivotal was used by my opponent, I am sure it's appropriate to provide my own, which I find unbiased and accurate.
Pivotal- Vitally important; Critical 
I will now hand the debate to my opponent, who has the burden to prove how and why the USSR was more pivotal in WW2 in Europe. I eagerly await his response.
Clearly Britain, USA and the Soviet Union all played instrumental parts in winning World War 2 on the Eastern Front for the allies. Whilst Britain and Particularly the USA were focused on the far east the Soviet Union was the one that was allowed to solely focus on the Nazis and as a result contributed the most to winning the war.
1. The USSR faced the brunt of the Nazi war machine. Between 1941-1945 67.5% of German divisions and troops were located in the Soviet Union. (1) 54.25% of Nazi aircraft were also fighting in the Soviet Union between 1941 to 1944. Of the 3.35 million German soldiers who died in ww2(2), 2.8 million were killed on the Eastern front or 84%. The majority of the German divisions not stationed in the Soviet Union were or occupation and not for fighting. It was the Soviets who faced and destroyed the majority of the German army.
2. Many would call the victory at Stalingrad as the turning point in the Eastern front as the Germans failed to achieve any significant victories after the defeat. This was on the second of February 1943. Britain and USA did not land in Europe and more specifically Sicily until the 9th of July 1943. The war was already over by the time the USA and the commonwealth launched the Italian campaign. By the time Germany surrendered on the second of May the Allies had failed to take Italy and the entire 2 year long campaign was after the Soviets were winning on the Eastern Front. Certainly by D-Day the allies were simply speeding up the process and using it get what little leverage they could for post war negotiations.
All the countries fighting the Axis won the war. No country alone could. But when asking, on the European front, who pushed the Germans back the furthest, who captured their capital city, Berlin, causing Hitler to kill himself and who went fighting beyond Berlin, and halted waiting for the others to come from the other side? The answer would rather simply be the Soviets.
I will present my case, and refute my opponent's case in the next round.
There must be an understanding throughout the readers that the USSR did help win the war, but to say they were vitally important in winning the war is a complete overstatement. Every country involved did what they could, except maybe France. Britain and the US both contributed equally to the amount of bodies thrown into the meat grinder, and established a successful campaign in western Europe.
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 . 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 Britain and USA. 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. So already the United States and Britain are ahead in this debate.
The Eastern Front Fell due to Hitler, not the USSR
Widely misconceived is the notion that Stalin was brave and courageous in defending the interests of Europe and his homeland. It's actually opposite, of course. Stalin wanted to work with Hitler, at least a much longer time than Hitler had in mind (Hitler attack two years after the non-aggression pact that ensured 10 years of peace). "Stalin seems to have been caught off-guard by Hitler's betrayal...Suvorov explains that it was...profound disappointment that characterized Stalin's reaction" .
It was when Hitler attacked the Soviets in an attack known as Operation Barbarossa that Stalin actually attempted to fight back. Hitler and the Nazis wanted to attack Russia in May, to avoid fighting in the winter, but assisting Italy in conflicts in Greece and North Africa pushed the invasion date to June, a costly mistake by Hitler . He now had less time to defeat the Russians, a task that every army before him had failed to do due to Russia's climate.
The initial attack was extremely successful, and the Nazis pushed all the way to Moscow. They controlled the Ukraine, the Baltic States, and Belarus. Defeating the poorly equipped and trained Russian army was easy . However, Hitler had taken too long to take down Russia, and the winter set in. Temperatures reached 40 degrees below zero, freezing men in their sleep. The German's weren't prepared to face winter, and were stuck with spring uniforms. The Russians, however, were warm and toasty with their preparedness. Plenty of German soldiers froze to death, most likely more than were killed by the Russians, and eventually they stretched their supply lines so thin that they couldn't fight anymore, for they had no more bullets . This is what caused the devastation to the bulk of Hitler's army.
The Russian cold did more than the Russian army.
US/UK breached western front and eliminated Italian forces, splitting German focus and ending the war
D-Day was the beginning of the end for the Germans. The capability of the Allied forces was really shown through this victory. Against all odds, German entrenchments and bunkers were taken over in a beach assault. Prior to this, the Allies, mainly comprised of British, swept Africa and eliminated Italian forces, making it that much harder for the Axis to win . With Italy rendered basically harmless due to the fighting power of the British, the American's were able to perform D-Day with great success. Germany was now in a position that lost it it's first world war. She was surrounded by hostiles. While the bulk of the German army was being driven back to Germany from Moscow and Russian forces, Western allies were recapturing France and liberating prisoners of war, all the while advancing on German ground and putting a massive dent in the Nazi Empire.
Russia did nothing but repel an attack that the Nazi's issued and storm Berlin, which the other allies allowed them to do. They stormed Berlin along with the US and England, showing them to be equal.
To summarize, the Russians helped establish the Germans and prepared them for WW2, then signed a non-aggression pact with them, which they were stunned was broken by the Germans in a fierce assault. The assault had many major victories at first, eliminating a large part of the Russian army, and even resulted in the capture of many USSR provinces. Then the winter set in and ruined the German army, allowing an easy pushback by the Red Army. We can see Britain was also under siege, worse so than the Russians, and they still were capable of fighting, as seen in the major success of the African Campaign by the British. Then, the United States comes from the west, shatters German defensive positions, and starts liberating the west. This draws focus away from the East for Germany, and towards the West, thus splitting the Nazi effort and weakening them. Then Berlin was stormed and the war in Europe over.
Through all this, I find it very much adequate and fair to state that the USSR, Britain, and America were all equally critical in ending the war in Europe. That, or you could even see that the British and Americans were more critical in ending the war.
1.The USSR helped Hitler establish himself
Well this debate is about who won the war rather than who started it. As you stated the Nazis and Soviets signed a non-aggression act rather than an alliance. It was also signed in August 1939, when it was fairly obvious that the size of Germany's army compared to others and the fact it had rearmed so early meant is would be going to war soon anyway. Infact the Hossbach Memorandum of 1937(1) stated that Hitler wanted a full scale European war against Britain and France by 1941 anyway. Many historians have stated that is was the failure of Britain's policy of appeasement throughout the 1930s which caused WW2. The fact that the British and French allowed Germany to take Austria and Czechoslovakia due to the fact they also were interested in their own country rather than the well being of others. The USA had to wait until Germany declared war on them on the 11th of December 1941 and would be until May 1943 before US troops would even be involved in Europe.
2. Stalin supported Nazi Germany as part of his offensive strategy
Stalin was a huge believer in socialism in one country. He was more concerned with modernizing the Soviet Union and consolidating his own power than expanding. Only once it was obvious that war would happen with Nazi Germany did the Soviets even consider an offensive strategy. The Soviet Union expressed its desire to form an alliance with Britain and France against Nazi Germany in early 1939, but the British and French did not wish to do this because they hoped Nazi Germany would expand eastwards and fight the Soviet Union. British, French and Soviets did not like each other and all hoped Nazi Germany would fight the other. If the USSR and Germany went to war in September 1939 Britain and France would not have gotten involved. Appeasement was Britain's way of supporting Nazi Germany as part of their strategy.
3. The Eastern Front Fell due to Hitler, not the USSR
Well you could state that it was Hitler ordering the Luftwaffe to target civilian targets rather than RAF bases that made them lose the battle of Britain or the failure in not producing enough submarines for the battle of the Atlantic or the failures of the Battle of the Bulge caused the Nazis to lose rather than British and American success. As you stated yourself ,"The Russians, however, were warm and toasty with their preparedness. ," this sounds like USSR being successful. In fact in June 1942, well after the Germans had the learned lessons of the winter of the year before, 171 of the German's 226 divisions were still in the Soviet Union. It was up to the Soviet Union to fight them and push them back back to Berlin which is what they did.
4. D-Day was the beginning of the end for the Germans
The 2nd of February 1943 was the beginning of the end for the Nazis. After the loss at Stalingrad Hitler never won a single important victory on the Eastern front. The distance from Normandy to Berlin is 986 miles according to Google earth. Moscow to Berlin is 1,625 miles. The Soviets took more land, killed more soldiers and endure more suffering from the Nazis.
5. We can see Britain was also under siege, worse so than the Russians
(3) The soviets took 23.4 million deaths during WW2, over 12 million of which were civilians. That's 13.88 percents of the population. Britain on the other hand took 450,900 deaths or 0.94 percent of the population. In no way shape or form can it be argued that Britain suffered more from fighting Nazi Germany than the Soviet Union did. More people died in the Philippines than did in Britain.
6. Russia did nothing but repel an attack that the Nazi's issued and storm Berlin, which the other allies allowed them to do. They stormed Berlin along with the US and England, showing them to be equal.
The Soviet union was exclusively involved in the Battle of Berlin(4). There were no American British involvement. Infact I would argue the opposite about who allowed whom to succeed. On the Western front between D-Day and the 2nd of May when Germany surrendered there were 1.5 million German troops on the western front(5). Over the same period there were 3.1 million Germans on the Eastern front. At no point after 1941 were Britain or America fighting or killing as many Germans as the Soviet Union were.
7. Against all odds, German entrenchments and bunkers were taken over in a beach assault.
10,000 Germans vs 156,000 American and Commonwealth troops.(6) This is a bit like how America and Britain had 5.4 million troops to the German 1.5 million after D-Day. The Soviets were occupying and destroying the majority of the Nazi forces and allowing Britain and America to have an easy victory.
1. Britain's policy of appeasement and the USA's isolationist position were all much more integral to WW2 breaking out than the Nazi Soviet Pact
2. America and Britain only got involved in Europe by May 1943. After Germany was already in retreat mode on the Eastern front.
3. The Soviet Union took the majority of the land and were the ones to take Berlin.
4. The simplest way to see who was more pivotal is to look at post WW2 Europe. The USSR was given almost the entirety of Eastern Europe as well as the largest section of Germany. They received the most because they had done the most. At Potsdam and Yalta it was clear who had the most say.
1. SO many Germans were on their eastern side because of the huge Russian force that existed. Throughout the war in total, 20 million men fought for the Soviets . Germany needed more troops stationed there in order to even the odds. The Germans were still outnumbered 4 to 1 and managed to desecrate the entire Russian army , so the Red army was rebuilt, and then again torn down by the Germans . The point I am trying to make is that Stalin's army was poorly trained, poorly equipped, and unable to handle the Germans. So many Germans were killed in the Easy due to the massive mistake Hitler made in sending them.
Right now, it's like you are complementing a hundred men for being able to shoot ten blind men from 50 yards out. What they did wasn't hard, brave, or talented at all. Any of the Allies could have participated in this meat grinder, with LESS casualties than the Red Army suffered. It was Hitler who made the errors in sending his troops into the Russian winter, where they were vulnerable. Russia barely was able to push back the broken and unsupplied German army after winter broke.
2. It's difficult to interpret what point Pro is trying to make here. Stalingrad wasn't a Russian success, but a German failure. It's important to note that tens of thousands of Italians were present in Stalingrad, an army that was very weak and unable to do much . This no doubt crippled the Germans. And the attack focus of USA and Britain wasn't Italy, but Germany's western front. Italy was not a threat. There would be no need to attack into Italy, for the Italian people were already revolting and the whole country was collapsing from within. Why waste the resources? You name Stalingrad as the reason the USSR was more pivotal, but I could name hundreds of battles that show USA and Britain to be just as important, if not more so.
Now on to defending my points.
USSR Helped Hitler
The resolution asks which was more pivotal in winning the war, not who won the war. It's very important to look at the people who helped Hitler establish himself. Sure, the British appeased Hitler, trying to control him and control a possible war that would outbreak. The Hossbach Memorandum wasn't made public, and Hitler himself always promised the European leaders that he only wanted what was his, that it's only fair, blah blah blah. He never made it clear his intentions of war. Stalin, however, made his want a reality with the training he actually gave his men.
The USSR provoked WWII by training German troops and signing peace treaties with them. Britain, on the other hand, tried to stop WWII from even happening through a plan that they wouldn't know would fail. It's clear here that USSR was more responsible for the start of this horrible war, thus making it impossible for them to be considered pivotal in winning it. They get no credit since they were eager to have the war.
2. Most of this is not contingent to the resolution or topical in any way. There is no sourcing for any of it also, so it should be discarded by the reader.
The Eastern Front Fell due to Hitler, not the USSR
You basically admit that most of Germany's failures are because of Germany, not her opponent's. This strengthens my case completely. I must meet the resolution that all three countries were equally pivotal. Saying Germany caused her own defeats is basically saying they were all equally important in defeating Germany. And no, most of Germany's defeats on the western front weren't due to Germany. Either way though, I have won this debate. You concede that the opponent didn't matter, but that Germany failed. If the opponent didn't matter, the opponents were all equal. I state that Germany defeated herself against the USSR, but America and Britain defeated Germany on the Eastern front. Either way, I have satisfied the resolution and won.
The remaining soldiers in the soviet union after the dreadful winter were beaten, sick, hungry, and ill equipped. The Russians simply had to push forward to beat them back, and they still lost millions of men doing it. Again, this is just a meat grinder on Germany's part.
The soviets simply took back the land they lost, and lost more soldiers doing it then all the other allies combined in the whole war . By the time that Russia reached into inner Europe, basically out of the Soviet Union, all major armies of Germany's were defeated, Italy was rendered useless, and the bulk of the fighting was going on in the West, all thanks to USA and Britain.
Britain under siege
Fair enough. Britain endured less actual death, but that's most likely because Britain was much better at fighting than the Russians. Still, they were blockaded by the Germans and bombed continuously. They still managed to get forces to disrupt Italian activities, helping win the war in Europe.
Battle of Berlin
The Allies allowed Russia to conquer Berlin because they didn't want to lose the lives of their soldiers. The Red Army was also racing into Berlin to capture nuclear programs and research, as your source states. However, this is all irrelevant. If the Red Army hadn't of stormed Berlin, the other Allies simply would. It was no secret at that time that Germany was going to fall. Hitler committed suicide BEFORE and Russians entered Berlin, showing their demise to be imminent. The Soviets got their first. That, however, doesn't make them pivotal in winning. Just greedy for nuclear research.
Quite simply, the Germans ended the war for themselves. Attacking Russia and getting caught in the winter showed how it weakened them, and continuing to attack them only increased their dead. Russia simply got attacked, and later repelled the attack. They did nothing else of significance, and would have worked with Germany if it wasn't for Germany going back on their word! Meanwhile, the USA and Britain were making decisive victories and conquering Nazi territory. They eliminated the Italians from helping the Nazi's, freed the French people, broke through the German's defenses and cleared the Nazi troops that were bombarding Britain. This, compared to Russia just having a giant death fest with Germany.
You don't get points for what you could have done but for what you actually did. The point of the matter is that the USSR did participate in the "meat grinder" which killed a lot more Germans than the Western front, Italian and North African campaigns did combined. 18,594(1) Germans died during the entire 3 year North Africa campaign. 750,000 Axis soldiers died at Stalingrad alone.
2. "The Allies allowed Russia to conquer Berlin because they didn't want to lose the lives of their soldiers. The Red Army was also racing into Berlin to capture nuclear programs and research, as your source states. However, this is all irrelevant. If the Red Army hadn't of stormed Berlin, the other Allies simply would."
Yet again it comes down to who actually did it. The Soviets were the ones to raise their flag over Berlin due to the fact they were actually the ones to take it.
3. "Russia simply got attacked, and later repelled the attack. They did nothing else of significance, and would have worked with Germany if it wasn't for Germany going back on their word! Meanwhile, the USA and Britain were making decisive victories and conquering Nazi territory."
The USSR got invaded by over 80% of the German army. From December 1941 to May 1945 the Soviets were able to take 1,625 miles killing 2.8 million German soldiers. The Axis of Germany and Italy took 836,606 casualties over the entire Western front between June 6th 44 and May 1945. That's less casualties than simply combing the two battles of Kursk and Stalingrad. Both of these happened before USA or Britain had even set foot on Europe since the embarrassment of the battle of France. Not a single allied Battle on the Western front was significant as it was obvious that the Nazis were already emphatically losing on the Eastern front by June 6th 1944.
4."By the time that Russia reached into inner Europe, basically out of the Soviet Union, all major armies of Germany's were defeated, Italy was rendered useless, and the bulk of the fighting was going on in the West, all thanks to USA and Britain."
The Russians were out of Russia on the 9th of September. Which is by my calculation a good 8 months before the Allies land in Northern France. Britain and the United States had only been fighting in Europe a rather small scale operation in Italy for 2 months before this. It is estimated that between September 1943 and April 1945 some 60,000 Allied and 50,000 German soldiers died in Italy. It's likely that some 5,000 Germans had died before the Soviets got out of Russia. Really sounds like America and Britain were doing the bulk of the fighting. In 1944 157 German divisions were located on the Eastern front; 44 were in France and Belgium. 85% of German casualties happening on the Eastern front tells you where the brunt of the fighting took place.
5. "You basically admit that most of Germany's failures are because of Germany, not her opponent's"
I used the phrase,"you could say', my point is that an Allied victory and an Axis defeat are not mutually exclusive. Infact they are simply two sides of the same coin. Hitler made mistakes everywhere but in large parts it was still down to the individual powers to beat Hitler. Even after 1941 where Germany has experienced the cold combined with the Soviet counter attack there were still millions of Axis soldiers in the Soviet Union to push back and destroy.
6. "The point I am trying to make is that Stalin's army was poorly trained, poorly equipped, and unable to handle the Germans. So many Germans were killed in the Easy due to the massive mistake Hitler made in sending them."
I don't quite understand what you are stating here. At the end of the day the Soviets killed far more men than Britain and the USA did combined. Even if you were to assume 1 million died of cold( the number is probably less than 100,000) more Germans would still have been killed directly by the Soviets than were by the USA and Britain.
7. "Still, they were blockaded by the Germans and bombed continuously. They still managed to get forces to disrupt Italian activities, helping win the war in Europe."
No one in their right mind could state that Britain suffered more than the USSR did from WW2. Hitler himself stated concerning Italy ,"Our Italian ally has been a source of embarrassment to us everywhere.,". As mentioned earlier the North Africa campaign was minuscule to the Eastern front in terms of casualties and the territory is not in Eastern Europe. The 3 year campaign did nothing to decide who would win WW2.
8. "It's clear here that USSR was more responsible for the start of this horrible war, thus making it impossible for them to be considered pivotal in winning it. They get no credit since they were eager to have the war."
The Soviet Union were attacked. Stalin was a huge proponent if socialism in one country and due to purges and wanting to further industrialize Russia did not want a war. Infact of all the major powers in 1939 Stalin was probably the one least interested in war. Britain declared war on Germany, USA also got involved in a war with Germany despite being invaded. By the time the Soviets had pushed the German's out they had lost over 15 million people and so I think its understandable to want unconditional surrender when its clear you're going to win, as it was for the Soviet Union before D-Day had even been launched. Britain and France's 4 year plans made them eager to wage a war in 1939(3) as they would not be able to rearm for any longer. Britain chose war, the USSR did not.
The only time Soviets trained Germans was from the treaty of Rapallo, which was in 1922. A full 9 years before Hitler came to power and only just as Stalin had come to power. It was necessary to enter into a non-aggression pact with Germany to buy time, since the Soviet Union was not in a position to fight a war in 1939, and needed at least three years to prepare. The point I was making about the Hossbach Memorandum was that Hitler already planned in 1937 to be at war and by August 1939 it was clear that war was going to break out. Nazi-Soviet relations had no effect on the war starting.
9. "They eliminated the Italians from helping the Nazi's, freed the French people, broke through the German's defenses and cleared the Nazi troops that were bombarding Britain. This, compared to Russia just having a giant death fest with Germany."
That's the point. The Soviets fought an absolutely brutal war with the Nazis. The majority of Nazi soldiers and equipment involved in a huge war of attrition. The allies landed in 1944 against the least experienced members of the German army of which they outnumber over 3-1, to easy victories, which essentially simply sped up the conclusion of the war.
As I have stated many times, and con has not refuted, the vast majority of German soldiers and equipment was taken out by the Soviets during WW2. They took the most land and every year from 1941 onwards the majority of German divisions were facing the Soviets. Nazi Germany never could have won WWII against the Soviet Union, as Germany's population of about 80 million could not subdue the Soviet population of over 150 million and all its vast resources in Asia. It might have taken until 1946-48, but eventually the Soviets would have conquered the Nazi empire and most of Europe would have fallen under Soviet control. The world would have traded one bloody totalitarian dictator for another. It was not German failure but Soviet perseverance that won the war. Doing far more in Europe than Britain or America did. The Germans were in full retreat on the Eastern Front by D-Day. The Soviets received the most concessions in the post WW2 world due to having done the most to win WW2.
My opponent has not sufficiently proven that the USSR, and the USSR alone, was most pivotal in winning the war. He simply shows many statistics pointing towards the amount of German casualties the Russians managed to stack up. There is no way you can state that to win a war, all you must do is take enough life. That's not the objective to winning a war. You need to plan out a strategy and have a combination of tactics and brute force.
USSR had the amount of troops necessary to counter the Germans, I.E. brute force.
Britain and US had implemented a correct strategy to fight the Nazi's by disrupting their union with the Italians and by concentrating their efforts on strongpoints, I.E. Tactics.
So we see Russia to have the force, and US and Britain to have the tactic. These are two things you need to win a war, and this war was no different. Therefore, I have upheld my side of the resolution, and my opponent has not. He has simply proved my side further by continuing to post statistics on German deaths and Russian deaths.
I would like to take this time to go back to my original points, of which my opponent largely ignored.
The USSR helped Hitler establish himself
My opponent only mentions this in his last round, stating that Stalin had to because he was not ready for war. This is irrelevant. Britain wasn't ready for war either, yet they had no part in a non-aggression pact. But that's a side point to the main picture here. Russia trained German troops and gave ample room for growth for the Nazi army . There is no excuse for such an action, and this directly leads to WW2 being such a huge problem.
My quotes on Stalin stating how he wanted to take over Europe himself is also not addressed. This is a huge issue because it shows that Stalin had all intentions of joining with Hitler.
This point has been mainly ignored by my opponent. The readers should take this into account upon voting.
Again, two countries that fought hard against Germany and gave them no leniency versus Russia, who helped train German soldiers and only fought back once they were attacked. It's more than fair on my part to state that all three of these nations are equally important in winning world war 2.
The Eastern Front Fell Due to Hitler, Not The USSR
Again, this isn't really reflected on by my opponent. HE states that Germany failed in almost all of it's endeavors, not just it's attack on the USSR. If this was true, however, we wouldn't see the Nazi empire grow to how large it did. Like I said, Hitler underestimated the Russian cold and made a mistake going deep into enemy territory. His supply lines were stretched thin and made easy targets. His army, once the cold really set in, was broken on multiple layers. The Russians simply fought dying Germans. This should hardly be considered an accomplishment.
This was Hitler's mistake, not Russia's success. Like my opponent states, all russia did was "...push them back to Berlin". After that, of course Russia kicked it into gear and started really going on the offensive, but again, it just lead to a meat grinder. More Russians were killed then Germans. The same can't be said of the US and Britain.
US/UK split German focus
My opponent literally brushes off the Italian campaign as unimportant. How exactly is taking out the southern half of Europe and one of Germany's allies not important? Moreover, how exactly can my opponent view the USSR as more pivotal when they did nothing of the sort! My opponent's only defense is that Normandy is closer to Berlin then Moscow, and the Russians reached Berlin first.
Well good for them. That, however, just proves that whips make soldiers march faster. I have two valid points here that are unanswered, another variable to factor into your votes. So far, we have multiple points of mine that are ignore. That alone should give me the win for this debate.
Now to finalize my attack. My opponent's main case seems to be the amount of troops that the USSR was able to eliminate. That, and the fact that the USSR was able to take Berlin, hardly an accomplishment.
More Germans Killed
To this main point, I ask a question. Would the USSR be able to handle all of Germany and Italy on it's own? Say US and Britain were out of the picture....can the readers possibly see the Russians, who almost lost Moscow to an assault that would be increased tenfold with the absence of the other allies, being able to not only push back the massive Axis assault but then eliminate the German and Italian threats once and for all? It's not a feasible thing to suggest. It's also not feasible to suggest that the US and Britain could have done it alone. I am advocating a position of shared importance, something that seems very fair considering all the work the US and Britain did compared to the Soviets.
Like I said before, it takes force and tactic to win a war. The Russians were able to muster up the force, though they lost close to 20 million before the war was over.
America and Britain took decisive action through multiple key victories that not only drew German attention to the West, but eliminated the Italians, an ally of the Germans.
USSR took Berlin
Yes, they did. That, however, was the end of the war. The defenses of Berlin were very scarce, as many of the troops had run away over the course of the assaults . The Nazi empire had crumbled. It's army was broken, Hitler was dead. Germany was surrounded, and everything it had accomplished was already being taken down and rebuilt.
All that was left was to storm Berlin. This can be compared to turning off a switch that ended the life of a terminal patient. It was very simple, just flick the switch, and it's all over. It's not like Russia was singular in their Berlin success. Anybody could have easily done this, and the Americans would have, if it wasn't for Stalin's eagerness to reach the German research on nukes and other atomic devices. It's this exact eagerness that led to the death of many soviets that didn't need to die if they hadn't been rushing so much.
Throughout this debate, my myopic opponent focus singularly on the amount of German's that Russia was able to kill. But this is not the only thing needed to win a war, as I have stated. It takes multiple efforts through tactic and force, and the US and Britain was able to cooperate with Russia in order to win the war together . My job in this debate was to show how the United States and Britain were equal to the USSR or more important in winning the war. I have successfully shown how this happened, while my opponent has simply shown statistics giving the Russians credit for the deaths of Germans. This, however, is not enough to give them credit for winning World War Two.
I thank my opponent for this debate and the readers for taking the time to read and vote. It's through your efforts that keeps the debate system strong. Thank you all.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Just an all around superior presentation by Con. I rarely give out this many points, but Con really deserves it with the points about what it takes to in a war and the facts about the Winter overshadowing Russian military efforts. Con possibly could have gone into great detail about the massive contribution of the USA, but really already won the debate by simply debunking the Russians contributions. A cold and effective defeat of Pro's resolution.