The United States' involvement in WWII was just as important in saving Europe as the Soviet Union's.
Debate Rounds (3)
Resolution: The United State's involvement in World War II was just as important, if not more, in saving Europe as the Soviet Union's involvement.
The United States getting involved in World War II helped save Europe just as much as Russia's involvement. While it's true that the war was already over for Germany, and Russia did defeat Germany at Berlin, the United States played just as important a role in saving Europe.
R1 = Acceptance
R2 = Arguments and Rebuttals
R3 = Arguments and Rebuttals
- Con may use Round 1 to post his first argument, kicking off the debate. He must forfeit his Round 3 if so. Con chooses who goes first.
- All wording must be straightforward. No word-play and deceptive/abused semantics.
To accept the Debate, you must have at least 3 debates of experience, and a rank equal to or above mine.
"To accept the Debate, you must have at least 3 debates of experience, and a rank equal to or above mine."
My debate experience is sufficient and my rank in winning WWII debates is much higher than yours. I accept.
I will argue that the involvement of the United States in WWII was much smaller than that of the USSR.
Thank you to STALIN for accepting this debate. Remember that the survival of Europe is in the survival of the European governments before the war.
Argument I: US Aide to the Allies
It's true that Germany had lost the war as soon as he attacked Russia, but only because of the resources provided by the West. Throughout the war, the United States had provided the Soviet Union with nearly 4 million tons of supplies, making up for the grave loss of production from Stalingrad factories and factories Germany had got a hold of elsewhere. The US gave nearly $50 billion worth in supplies to the Alliies, including $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union (the equilant of $650 billion today, including almost $150 billion to the Soviets)(1). Russia was able to survive because of the first Russian winter Hitler's army found themselves in, but after the season, Russia would have been overcome. Russia would not have had the necessary supplies by the second winter.
It was American support that gave the Soviet Union the supplies it needed to survive after the winter. If we review a chart of maps (seen below) showing the progress of Germany and the Soviet Union between the colder and warmer seasons each year, we see that Germany was by no means stopped (2). When the first winter was over, Germany continued to roll over Russia. If Russia had not received supplies to replace their lost production, Germany would have covered much more ground, possibly crippling Russia's ability to retake the land took in 1942. Without the constant supplies from 1941 to 1945, Russia would have been drowned in the German advance.
Much of Russia's survival depended on the US's supplies. After the first winter, Germany's numbers barely went down. The number of soldiers increased after the second winter (3).
More importantly was the US's supplies to Great Britain and French rebels throughout the war. The US helped make up for Britain's loss of Oil from Africa, and the loss of much of their empire, including almost everything in the Pacific. The US was vital for preserving Great Britain through out war. The supplies to the Western Front helped distract Germany.
With only half of his army, Hitler took 90% of Stalingrad (4). If the US hadn't supplied the Western Front, Africa would have been taken and it wouldn't have took so many men to hold down Britain and French Rebels. Germany would have been able to contribute many more soldiers and supplies to the Eastern Front. Without supplies, Russia would have never survived the larger (and more supplied) onslaught of Germans. Especially not if Germany had fully took Stalingrad before winter, and with more men and supplies, they would have.
This all including that the US had never entered the war. If the US hadn't provided the supplies, and entered to war around the same year that Germany went into Russia, the Eastern Front would have ended differently. In the second year of the assault, Germany survived winter and doubled the amount of land it had took. If the US hadn't entered, becoming a major distraction to Germany in Africa and Italy, Germany would have ran through Russia in year 2, and had the men and supplies to hold out during the second winter.
Of course, the US did provide resources and entered the war. Without that, the possibility of Germany winning would have been much higher. Even after entering, and Germany's guaranteed loss at the hands of the (US Supplied) Soviet Union, it was the US that saved Europe, but not from Germany. Especially if Russia had won without US Supplies.
Argument II: Russian Offensive.
The Soviet Union had a habit, one seen on a large scale during WWII. Here is a map of Europe after WWII.
Most maps will display the West as blue and the East as red. It should be understood that the West was free of US control, while Russia held firm power over all the land it walked over. Russia wasn't in the game of liberation. The soviets engulfed much of what Germany conquered in the East, and politically conquered the rest. Stalin held a near absolute hand over all the Socialist governments he forced onto the East, while the US mostly returned the West to their governments.
Without the US, D-Day would have either never happened, or would have been postponed a great deal of time. The US was responsible for half of the landing forces (5). The Allies would have never got onto the beach in time. Even if they had, without the United States, Russia would have been in a position to take all German-held land on both the East and West fronts.
Without the US on the other side of Germany, Russia would have held all of French and Italy, even if only Politically (much like Poland.) The Governments of Europe, with the exception of Britain, Spain and Portugal, would have been lost. To win the war, the current governments must survive the war, and if the US hadn't been in Western Europe, the governments wouldn't have. Russia, and especially Stalin, would have jumped onto the West immidiately, with Great Britain being the only Allied nation to survive.
While Con would likely see this as a win for Europe, it's not our perspective that determine if Europe won, but the perspective of the nations in the war. If the United States wasn't in the war, the Democratic nations of the West would have been gone. All of Allied Europe, except for Britain, would not have survived or been liberated.
If the US hadn't given supplies, Germany would have likely won. Even with supplies, if the US didn't actually enter the war, the Allied nations of the West would have been lost to the Societ Union.
I thank Pro for his arguments. I will now state mine.
Argument I: The Soviet military contributions overshadowed the help that the allies received from American Supplies.
80% of the German army was destroyed on the eastern front. In June 22, 1941 3.5 million German troops invaded the USSR. At the same time, there were only 150,000 Germans fighting in Africa against the British. In the previous round Con stated that "after the first winter, Germany's numbers barely went down". That is completely false. In 1941 alone, Germany suffered some 850,000 casualties. Hitler's generals concluded that the German army was no longer capable of launching an offensive along the whole front. 
The tide was turned on the eastern front. Before Germany invaded the USSR, it had been winning battle after battle and conquering Europe country by country. After Germany invaded the USSR, that all changed.
The battle of Moscow was the first time that the German blitzkrieg was stopped and then forced to retreat a hundred miles. The battle of Moscow ensured that Germany would not win a quick victory on its own terms.
At Stalingrad, the world was saved. Stalin was prepared to defend the city to the end which means that if Germany had won at Stalingrad, the Soviet army would have been almost completely destroyed. In addition to this, the British Empire was saved. From the Caucuses, Germany could invade the Middle East and from there, they could invade India and open up a second front in Egypt and eventually link up with Rommel (The map bellow will explain this better. On the map, Stalingrad is Volgograd). The Germans may even have been able to link up with Japan. Had Germany won at Stalingrad, the 100,000 American soldiers who had landed in Morocco would not have been of any help. At Stalingrad, not only was Europe saved, the entire world was. Germany suffered its greatest defeat and was in retreat on a scale never seen before.
The Battle of Kursk was the third turning point of the war. At Kursk, Germany lost all chances of winning the war.
Most of Germany's remaining tanks were destroyed. 
The Soviets captured Berlin. This is not a very strong argument since anybody could have captured Berlin. However it was the Soviets who captured Berlin which caused Hitler to commit suicide and brought and end to the war.
American supplies were very helpful. Con proves this. However what he fails to do is to prove that without American supplies the war in Europe would definitely have been lost. Con presents statistics on how the US gave $50 billion worth in supplies to the allies including $11.3 billion to the USSR. He states that without these supplies, both Britain and the USSR would have lost the war. What Con doesn't do is explain what portion of total Soviet and British production were American supplies. Since Con failed to do so, I will say it myself. American supplies made up around 15% of total Soviet production. By 1943 the Soviets were producing three times as much as Germany. This leads me to believe that without American supplies the war in Europe would have been much harder to win and would have taken much longer to win. However this does not prove that without American supplies, the allies would definitely have lost.
American boots did not hit Europe until 1943. America entered the war in late 1941, 6 months after the USSR did. In 1942, America played a junior role in driving Germany out of Africa. In 1943, the United States invaded Sicily. By this time, the axis powers had suffered close to 2 million casualties on the eastern front.
The Western Allies did not really play an important role in Europe until 1944, 11 months before the end of the war. The Western Allies had promised to open up a second front in 1942 in France, yet failed to do so. Then the Western Allies had promised the same in 1943, and instead fought minor engagements on the Italian Peninsular. It was only in 1944, when the outcome of the war was already certain, that the Western Allies invaded France. By this time, the Soviets had faced and killed many millions of axis troops. The Soviets had defeated Germany's allies Romania and Finland. By 1944 Germany was down to boys and old men.
I will now compare the American and Soviet contributions. As Con stated earlier, the American contributions were largely in supplying the Soviet Union and Britain. However what did America do to actually defeat Germany? America was responsible for the defeat of some 10% of German forces. So clearly the Soviet military contribution was larger than that of the US. However Con argues that America made up for this by sending supplies to support its allies. I disagree. What is harder, giving somebody the money to buy bread, or walking 30 miles to the store to actually go buy the bread. Now lets apply this to WWII. Which is harder, sailing ships loaded with supplies to help the USSR fight Germany, or actually killing million of German soldiers? Over 25 million Soviets died while fighting the Germans. America on the other hand only suffered a few hundred thousand casualties. Germany was defeated by the USSR, therefore the USSR saved Europe from Germany. American supplies merely helped.
Argument II: The United States did not save Europe from the Soviets, Stalin did.
Stalin did not seize an opportunity granted by the fact that Germany had to fight Britain and France. Stalin could have invaded Europe, but he chose not to. Had Stalin broken the pact with Hitler while Germany was invading France, the Soviet army of over 3 million men could have conquered Germany without much trouble. By the time Germany recovered from the Soviet attack and sent his army to face the Soviets, the Red Army would have been at the gates of Berlin. In addition to this, Hitler would have had to make a difficult choice: stay to finish off France and capture Paris or send his army east to save Berlin. Although Hitler had cut off the allies at the English Channel and killed or captured 2 million men, he had failed to capture Paris. At this point, Stalin could simply invade Germany and invade France who had just almost been defeated by Germany. Following this invasion, the remaining countries would quickly fall in line. However Stalin hid behind a pact and as a result, Europe went under the thumb of the Nazis.
Hitler's initial success in Operation Barbarossa was due to Stalin. In 1937, Stalin had purged eight of his best marshal's. In the 1930's, Stalin also killed many of his top scientists who had been developing technology that could be of huge value to the USSR. Stalin replaced skilled military generals, many of whom were just as good as German generals, with loyal Communists who had no military experience. Stalin began producing the incorrect models of tanks and planes because he believed that numbers were what mattered. When Hitler invaded, Stalin was completely unprepared even though it was obvious that the Germans were going to invade. Hundreds of Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the ground. Hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers were encircled at Minsk and in other pockets along the front. Within 5 months, the Red Army had suffered 12 million casualties including 5 million men taken prisoner by the Germans . Who is to blame? Stalin. Had Stalin correctly built the Red Army and not purged his top generals, the USSR could have had the most powerful military in the world. Had Hitler decided to invade the USSR, then the Soviets would have quickly defeated Germany, one army group at a time. The United States or Britain would not have arrived to save Europe from the Soviets in time. Germany would have been defeated quickly. Stalin would have invaded Europe. If Britain had managed to land a few divisions in France, then Stalin would undoubtedly have declared war and seized the entire European continent.
Argument III: Britain could have saved Europe from the Soviets alone
Britain could have invaded France without the help of the United States. In the previous round, Con stated that the American forces made up about half of the allied forces at D-Day. Therefore, without the United States, invading France would have been impossible. I completely disagree with this. At D-Day, 156,000 allied troops assaulted a 10,000 man German front. In the process, the allies suffered 12,000 casualties. Out of the 156,000 allied troops assaulting Normandy, 83,000 were British and Canadian. I believe that it would have been entirely possible for an allied success without help from American forces. Germany would have been outnumbered 8:1 even without the United States. I agree that perhaps it would not have been possible to successfully take all 5 beeches without American manpower. However all 5 beeches would not have needed to be taken. Three beeches would have gained the allies a foothold in France. Therefore, Europe could have been saved without the United States. 
Britain could have waited to invade France. Axis forces would go east to fight the Soviets. Think about it this way:
Conclusion: Con went into depth about how the United States played an important role in supplying its allies. I showed how these supplies were overshadowed by the overwhelming Soviet military contribution. Con also talked about how the United States saved Europe from the Soviets. However the British Empire (map) made up half the forces used at D-Day. Also, Stalin saved Europe from himself.
Thank you for the reply. I must explain that each time I say anything to the liking of "The US presence on the other side of Germany," I'm referring to the Allied army on the other side because of the US,
Much of Con's argument is gravely irrelevant to the resolution. Con is focusing too much on how much of a role Russia played in winning the war, while the resolution is about the saving of Europe, which is not the same thing. It's likely Russia would have still defeated Berlin none the less without the US sending soldiers. The question is, would the Nations of Europe have been saved without the US there?
Rebuttal I: The Soviet military contributions overshadowed the help that the allies received from American Supplies.
The number of men killed is irrelevant in who saved Europe. Being the deadliest battle and the important battle are two separate things. Con is misled to think the the number changed a lot. Yes, many Germans died, but at the end of the year, the number barely changed. In 1941, the number of Germans was 3,767,000. In 1942 of the same month, it had gone down to 3,720,000 (1).
Again, much of Con's arguments don't relate to the Resolution. Russia may have won the war, but they didn't save Europe. It was the US on the other side of Germany that saved the remainder of Europe from the Soviets.
Con talks about how, in 1943, the Soviets were producing 3x what the Germans were. This would be a standing argument except that it took US supplies for Russia to reach that goal. Until then, Russia depended on US aide to make up for what the Soviets had lost until they could take back much of their land and factories, and reboot production. The US also provided up to 400,000 vehicles. With out the vehicles, including trucks and jeeps, Russia would not have been as mobilized as they required. The automobiles aided their military and industry greatly. The US also provided nearly 12,000 armored vehicles, 7,000 of which were tanks. This came at a time when Stalin had been trying to replace the nation's tanks with newer ones. This also included 340,000 telephones for on the field. That number of phones was vital for the Russian military.
The Soviet Union would have been in a hard spot without the early supplies.
When the US entered the war is absolutely irrelevant. The US could have entered the war last second and the resolution would stand. The US presence on the other side of Germany is important, not when it entered the actual battle. It is to be remembered that the US had been supporting the Allies since before Russia entered the war. Until Russia had entered the war, Russia had been supplying Germany (3).
The reason the Allies couldn't open the front in France was because of the lack of manpower and equipment. This was made up for by the US entry in the war, providing half the man and most the ships used in D-Day, and helping to break Britain out of Africa.
Rebuttal II: The United States did not save Europe from the Soviets, Stalin did.
Don't confuse yourself. Stalin wasn't saving Europe. He was waiting. The Soviets had prior begin replacing their tanks with T-34s (4) and rebuilding their Army. Stalin found out after the Winter War that he did not have the Military infrastructure to enter a large war. After the purge, the army was left with little to no officer corp, and Stalin knew he could not enter a full war. This is why Hitler was so successful in the first two years on the Eastern Front, as Con acknowledged. After the war started, Stalin quickly built up his army's infrastructure. By the time the war had ended, Stalin had the manpower and infrastructure needed.
Con contradicts. One second he says Stalin had the manpower to bulldoze Germany, the next he says Stalin didn't have the infrastructure needed. Con is trying to make it out as though Russia didn't take over Europe by choice. Russia had no means to at the time. It wasn't until the war ended that the Russian's had the power. Stalin would have kept going, taking over France and Italy as well in his political conquest of Germany's prior held land.
Stalin didn't save Europe. He simply didn't have the infrastructure. Especially not to take down Berlin at that time. By the time he had took Berlin, he had the military needed. It was the US presence on the other side that kept Stalin out of the remainder Europe.
Rebuttal III: Britain could have saved Europe from the Soviets alone
Con is right to mention that the US made up about half the force. The UK and Canada could have without stormed the beach with 80,000 men. The problem with his contention is that, with all 156,000 of the soldiers that was there, we almost lost D-Day.
Britain could never have stormed those beaches. With all their soldier's and the US's, D-Day was still almost lost. So badly, in fact, that Eisenhower was writing letters explaining the defeat (6). The battle was almost lost even with double the manpower. With just Britain alone, the battle would never have won. Con is gavely mistaken to assume Britain could have stormed the beaches. His argument again contradicts. One minute he says Britain could do it without the US, the next he's talking about how they kept failing to do it until D-Day... A battle that was almost lost with American support.
Germany had already sent forces out of France.... To fight the US in Italy. By the time Hitler sent man to Russia, the British would not have got far through France. Britain literally could not land on France, better yet get far enough in to withstand Soviet mongering past East Germany. Especially if the US had never supplied Britain.
Rebuttal IV: Conclusion
Con did not show how overshadowed these supplies were. Especially since he ignored US Supplies to Britain. The US supplies played a vital role in the early parts of the Eastern Front. Without them, the Soviet's under-performing military complex would have contributed little, although Russia would likely have still entered Germany in time. The British could have never invaded France by itself because it almost lost even with the US.
Stalin didn't save Europe from himself. He was simply waiting after his Purge in the earlier years. After the war, Stalin had the military infrastructure to bulldoze France and the rest of Nazi-controlled Europe. It was the US on the other side of the fence that saved Europe.
A great deal of Con's arguments were about how Russia helped win the war, not how they helped save Europe. As my arguments go, it was Russia the US saved the remainder of Europe from.
The Russians depended a lot on US supplies, including armored vehicles, telephones, and food, as well as vehicles, in the beginning of the war. After had hit Berlin, it was the US presence on the other side of Germany that saved the freed France, Italy, and remainder of nations from the Soviets. Stalin had politically took over every nation Germany held on the East, and would have took the nations Germany held on the West as well if the Allied army hadn't been there.
The Allied army would never had been there in time, or even in Europe, if not for the US. The US pushed Britain into France. With the US, D-Day was almost a disaster, without them (doubling the manpower) D-Day would never have succeeded (or even attempted.) Especially not without the US supplies. Without the US, Russia would have politically conquered the remainder of Europe, wit the exception of Spain and Britain.
For the sake of debate, I should say that if the US's supplies weren't as helpful as I claim, the resolution would still be upheld. In fact, Con must understand that if Russia didn't need the supplies, it wouldn't simpl make the US presence on the other side of Germany even more important.
While Russia helped a lot in winning the war, it was the US that saved the remainder of Europe from Russia, who would have easily ran over the remainder of German-held land if the US hadn't pushed the Allies into Germany.
"The number of men killed is irrelevant in who saved Europe."
The USSR destroyed 80% of the German army. Therefore, it did the most to save Europe from Germany.
"In 1941, the number of Germans was 3,767,000. In 1942 of the same month, it had gone down to 3,720,000."
That is largely because reinforcements arrived to the eastern front.
I would like to start off by saying that Con completely fails to prove that without American supplies, the allies would definitely have lost the war in Europe. In round 2 and 3, Con argued that the USSR needed those supplies in 1941/1942 since they had suffered heavy losses. I said that by 1943, the USSR was producing 3x as much as Germany. Con replied to this by incorrectly stating that American supplies were included. Con goes on to provide statistics on how America provided armored vehicles, tanks*, telephones, and trucks. Unfortunately Con does not talk about the total Soviet production. How many tanks did the USSR produce? How many vehicles did the USSR produce? Con does not talk about how much American supplies helped the Soviets. Therefor, Con fails to prove that without American supplies, the Soviet Union would definitely have collapsed.
*I would like to point out that most American tanks were no match for a German Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panzer V, Panthers, and Tigers.
Con completely ignored my argument on how the USSR was responsible for the destruction of 80% of the German army. Con simply disregards this argument by saying that "the number of men killed is irrelevant in who saved Europe." Wait, so the USSR did most of the fighting but that doesn't count towards the Soviets saving Europe from Germany? Lets face it: Germany was defeated by the Soviet Union. Therefore, the USSR saved Europe from Germany. The USSR did more to save Europe from Germany because the USSR did more to defeat Germany. American supplies helped, but they were not what saved Europe from Germany.
"The reason the Allies couldn't open the front in France was because of the lack of manpower and equipment."
There were 3 million allied troops in France in 1944. In 1942/1943 I'm sure there must have been at least 500,000 troops. 
500,000 men is more than enough to successfully defeat a German front of 10,000 men.
I would also like to point out that Con completely ignored my argument that the Soviets saved the world during the battle of Stalingrad. I showed how Germany could have broken into the Middle East and begun invading the British Empire. America would never have reached Africa quickly enough in large enough numbers. Con completely ignores this argument.
Conclusion on who did more to save Europe from Germany:
Con chose to completely ignore two of my arguments (which I stated above). Instead he decided to provide statistics on how many tanks and telephones America sent to the USSR. However what Con fails to do is prove that without American supplies, the USSR would definitely have collapsed. I stated earlier that the USSR was producing 3x as much as Germany by 1943. And this did not include American supplies. As I stated before, the reason the USSR did more to save Europe from Germany is because the USSR did more to actually defeat Germany. Sure American supplies helped. But it was the Soviets who did most of the fighting and dying. America arrived late and played a minor role in the defeat of Germany. Germany's fate was determined on the eastern front. The Soviets did more to defeat Germany than the United States. Therefore, the USSR played a greater role in saving Europe from Germany.
I will now talk about saving Europe from the Soviets. Con stated that the United States saved Europe from the USSR. However I don't think that Con realizes that many countries participated in saving Europe from the USSR. Romania, Finland, Germany, Britain, America, etc all helped to save Europe from the Soviet Union. The question one may ask is which country did the most to save Europe from the USSR? Well the obvious answer would be Germany. Considering the fact that Germany was responsible for killing millions of Red Army soldiers and destroying many Russian cities. Nazi Germany also played an important role in the eventual break-up of the USSR in 1991.
Who played the second most important role in saving Europe from the Soviets? That would be Stalin himself. Con seems to underestimate the power of the Red Army in 1941. He says that the USSR would have had no chances of defeating Germany. "After the purge, the army was left with little to no officer corp, and Stalin knew he could not enter a full war." The purge did not deprive the USSR of all good marshals. The USSR could still take on Germany in 1941. "After the war started, Stalin quickly built up his army's infrastructure." Stalin was doing this throughout the 1930's. He was building up his army as quickly as he could and making radical military reforms in the process. "By the time the war had ended, Stalin had the manpower and infrastructure needed." By the time the war ended, the USSR was in ruins. The USSR had just lost millions of people. Many Soviet cities had been destroyed. The USSR had a larger manpower in the beginning of the war than at the end. This argument makes no sense.
"Russia had no means to [take Europe] at the time."
Russia didn't really intend to take Europe. But Stalin did. There is actually real evidence of Stalin's intention to invade Europe and eventually "liberate" Europe from the Nazis. Stalin wanted to take over the world if he could.
"Stalin didn't save Europe. He simply didn't have the infrastructure."
He sure did. The USSR had an air force larger than that of all other countries combined. The Soviets had very good tanks and a very good navy. On top of this, the USSR had some of the best artillery in the world. The only problem was that the USSR was not prepared for defensive actions. The Soviet Union was prepared for offensive actions instead. The previous link proves this.
Had Stalin moved in and invaded Germany in 1940 while Germany was still fighting in France, the USSR would have undoubtedly won. The Germans lacked resources including oil. Germany was very dependent on Soviet supplies (before they took over other countries) as Con proved. For example, in the battle of Britain, there were three components: the Spitfire, the Messerschmitt, and Soviet oil. Without Soviet oil, Germany would never have been able to invade France. And imagine if the Soviet Union stopped sending these supplies since they were invading. Germany would undoubtedly collapse.
There was also another opportunity that Stalin missed to capture Europe and defeat Germany in the process. This source will talk about this: http://en.wikipedia.org...
(map of invasion) http://militera.lib.ru...
The USSR could have successfully defeated Germany had they invaded Germany on June 12, 1941.
I have proved that Stalin did more than the USA to save Europe from the Soviet Union by making the incorrect decisions. Con tried and failed to prove that the USSR was simply not ready for a war. In 1941 the USSR had by far the largest army in the world. And had this army been unleashed upon Germany when Germany was not ready, Europe would undoubtedly have fallen to the Soviet Union.
Con also talks about how Britain would have had no chances of invading France without the aid of the United States. His own source contradicts this.
In 1944, the allies had 3 million men in France prepared for an invasion. Lets say half of these were American and only 156,000 were loaded onto ships bound for France. All you would need to do to have a successful D-Day is to replace American men with British men and there were plenty of British soldiers in England.
I would also like to note that Con did not really reply to the chronological list that I made of the scenario in the previous round.
Conclusion: In round one, Con's stance was that without American supplies the allies would have lost the war. The only problem is that Con completely failed to prove this. Sure he provided statistics on how many tanks and trucks the United States sent to the USSR. But Con never really described how Soviet military capabilities would have completely collapsed without American aid. In round three however, Con's stance changed to "the Russians depended a lot on US supplies..." In addition to this, Con chose to completely ignore two of my major arguments on how the USSR did more to save Europe from Germany. I stated that the USSR was responsible for defeating 80% of the German military. Then I stated that the USSR was responsible for possibly saving the world by defeating the Germans at Stalingrad. Con responded to both of these arguments by saying that this does not have anything to do with who did more to save Europe. In that case, must have been gravely mistaken in thinking that whoever did more to defeat Germany in WWII did more to save Europe from Germany. Con proceeds to explain how the United States saved Europe from the Soviet Union. However I countered this by explaining that the United States did not play the most important role in saving Europe from the USSR: Stalin and Hitler did. I would also like to point out that the Western Allies failed to save around 2/3's of Europe from the Soviet Union.
Con tried to skip around the main points in this debate. He completely ignored some of my strongest arguments. I finally conclude by saying that WWII was about saving the world from the axis aggressors, not from the Soviet Union. The Cold War was about saving Europe from the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, I showed how the United States was not the most important country to save Europe from the Soviets during WWII.
I thank Con for this debate. Perhaps some time later, we can have another WWII debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: This essentially boils down to the resolution. Pro has to show that the USAs involvement is just as important as the soviet unions. Con has to show that the soviet union is more important than the USAS. Con is at a disadvantage from the start. If pro were claiming that the USAS contribution and involvement is more important than the soviet unions, con would have had a clear win, but the title of the debate essentially shifted the BOP to con in a way. I think what won the debate for me was the point on Aid pro brought up. Even con states "overshadowed" a few times when talking about this. Con succeeded in proving that the soviet involvement was just as important as the USA but failed to show that is was more important. Great job to both contenders and great 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.