The Instigator
STALIN
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JimmyRusltler
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The role of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
JimmyRusltler
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,866 times Debate No: 39971
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (65)
Votes (2)

 

STALIN

Pro

WARNING: if you are not prepared to follow these rules then please do not accept this debate! Also if you do not plan to stay for each round, please do not accept.

Round 1: acceptance only
Round 2: post ALL arguments (arguments in rounds 3-5 will be ignored)
Round 3: rebut arguments
Round 4: rebut arguments
Round 5: rebut arguments/conclusion

Additional Rules:
-No insults
-No quitting
-Show respect

Time to argue per round: 72 hours
Maximum characters: 10,000

*Note: I have done this same debate several times already and these rules are based off of my previous experience. The reason that I set such strict rules for what each round will contain is because I do not want this debate to end up too chaotic.
JimmyRusltler

Con

I accept. You seem like a more than worthy opponent Joseph.
Debate Round No. 1
STALIN

Pro

ARGUMENT 1: The Western Allies were responsible for allowing Germany to break the Treaty of Versailles and allowing Germany to rebuild its military, expand into Austria, Czechoslovakia, and other territories. Appeasement by the British and French were what enabled WWII to start in the first place. Italy was allowed, by the Western Allies to invade Albania and Ethiopia. Germany and Italy helped the Fascists take power in Spain, but Britain and France did nothing. Yet the Soviets did send aid to the government in Spain.

ARGUMENT 2: The outcome of the war was decided on the eastern front. 80% of the German forces were destroyed on the eastern front together with Romanian, Hungarian, Finnish, and many Italian divisions. The important battles that decided the outcome of the war were fought on the eastern front. The three battles that ultimately destroyed the German military were the Battles of Moscow, Kursk, and Stalingrad.

ARGUMENT 3: This was one of the bloodiest battles in history (second only to Stalingrad) in which the Soviets captured Berlin. The Battle of Berlin forced Hitler to commit suicide and ended the war.
JimmyRusltler

Con

Nice arguments Fuhrer Stalin (thats right i went there!)
I will now post mine.

1. The soviets only entered the war after 1941
The soviet forces had not seen Germany as a "threat" to themselves and even signed a "non-aggression pact" which means they did not want to be part of the war at all. Thereafter, Germany and the Soviet Union invaded their apportioned sections of Poland. The Soviet Union later invaded Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and part of Romania, along with an attempted invasion of Finland. Stalin and Hitler later traded proposals for a Soviet entry into the Axis Pact. The Soviets even had inclinations of joining Germany! In June 1941, Germany began and invasion of the Soviet Union, before which Stalin had ignored reports of a German invasion. Only after the Germans started to attack Russia did they act, meaning that they did miss all of the conflict pre 1941 which destroyed a lot of the Allied Forces.

2. The Allied powers (exclude Soviet Union) had less man power yet did more damage.
The anti-German coalition at the start of the war (1 September 1939) consisted of France, Poland and the United Kingdom, soon to be joined by the British Commonwealth (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa.) These were generally all the allies before the Soviets. The Soviet Union had 9 to 14 million deaths in total but the allies (in total excluding the soviets) had 4.987 million deaths, while having 27 million soldiers deployed (excluding Soviets). The Soviets had 34 million soldiers deployed. Thus proving my point of the soviets having more man power (percent of Soviet soldier casualties, 51.85%, Percent of allied soldier casualties (excluding Soviets) 20.7%). Now for the proof that the allies did more damage. Britain (and it's commonwealth) had defended countries which Germany had intended to invade, for example North Africa, look up the Rats of Tobruk. Also before Stalingrad (a most bloody battle indeed) Britain had forced Germany to retreat from North Africa and retreat to more safe Axis territory. As many casualties (mainly Australian) had happened to Allied forces in that area they were unable to pursue and force the German front back further. However at Stalingrad, it was different. This was Soviet territory and had manpower to back up a full scale attack on the German front once the battle had been won, because of the extreme amount of manpower that the Soviets had. Onto France, the other side of the German front (as opposed to the Soviets). In 1940, France surrendered to Germany in the Battle of France, causing mass causalities and a chunk of their military to retreat into neighbouring countries. The French mainly retreated into North Africa and regrouped with the rest of the Allied troops, then able to create a force large enough to push forward into German lines. Now as this was happening, America and Britain were pushing forward towards Berlin at the same time as the Soviets. The Soviets (granted) did get to Berlin first but America also got there shortly after, assisting the Soviets and that ended with Hitler’s suicide. Since Germany’s forces were so widespread in the Second World War, this gave the Soviets more than ample enough opportunity to push forward through the German front as they had a lot more man power than the rest of the Allies. Also, not only did the rest of the Allies have Europe to deal with (again excluding the Soviets) they also had Japan and other fronts to contend with, spreading their thin man power even more, while still pushing towards Berlin.
To sum up this point, Russia had a straight forward line to Berlin while the rest of the Allies had to defend other countries, had less force, defend themselves, yet still managed to get to Berlin.

3. Britain’s Superior Royal Air Force
Lets all admit, Britain had the air force which dominated the sky. The Luftwaffe and the Royal Air force had many play off during WW2, mainly with Britain winning and destroying the German planes, even though severely outnumbered. Agreed the Luftwaffe was not as organized as the British air force, but the numbers outweighed the un organization. The Luftwaffe had 4727 aircrew and 4210 aircraft. Britain had around 920 aircraft but many airmen (cannot find exact number sorry :() but, night raids by the Luftwaffe cut down those numbers (again the numbers of exact cannot be found). After these air raids, the RAF attacked Germany on their front destroying much of their aircraft and some of their ground force. This means that the Soviets also did not have to deal with the German air force!

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org...;(military history of France)
http://en.wikipedia.org...;(Soviet Union in WWII)
http://en.wikipedia.org...;(Pearl Harbor)
http://www.historyonthenet.com...;(statistics)
http://en.wikipedia.org...;(British Empire)
http://en.wikipedia.org...;(General Info on WWII)
http://en.wikipedia.org...;(Luftwaffe)
http://en.wikipedia.org...;(RAF)
http://en.wikipedia.org...;(Rats of Tobruk)
http://en.wikipedia.org...;(Battle Of France)

Now it's your turn, don't think ill be Lenin you win :) (see what I did there?)
Debate Round No. 2
STALIN

Pro

I will start by saying that you basically typed a lot for nothing. Some of your information does nothing to support your point. Anyway, I will rebut your arguments.
REBUTTAL FOR ARGUMENT 1: "The soviets only entered the war after 1941."

Germany invaded the USSR on June 22 1941 [1]. Before this happened the Soviets, together with Germany had invaded and occupied countries in eastern Europe. The fact that Russia only joined the war after it was attacked does nothing to support your side of the debate. The Western Allies did nothing until Germany attacked them. And Britain, France, and Poland allowed Germany to take over Czechoslovakia, Austria, and other territories. The Western Allies split Europe with Germany, just like the USSR did. And saying that the Soviets had a non-aggression pact with Germany would be the correct and expected thing to say since the Soviets did have a non-aggression pact with Germany from 1939-1941. Although you emphasize the fact that the USSR was at peace, you completely leave out the fact that Britain and France had a non-aggression pact with Germany from 1933-1939, for six years. The only difference is that Britain and France appeased Germany, they never signed a pact [2]. Also, the USSR was fighting Fascism long before the Western Allies. Britain and France refused to send aid to help stop the Fascist rebels in Spain, but had they done so, the Spanish government may have won. Evidentially, Soviet supplies were not enough to enable the Spanish government to win [3]. The fact that the Western Allies allowed Germany to break the Treaty of Versailles [4], build up the Wehrmacht [5] and Luftwaffe [6], and take territories without firing a single shot proves that your first argument simply doesn"t work.
http://www.ushmm.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

REBUTTAL FOR ARGUMENT 2: "The Allied powers (exclude Soviet Union) had less man power yet did more damage."

The Western Allies had fewer men. So what? They also killed less German soldiers and tanks. The Soviets suffered heavy losses (almost 7 million in 1941 alone). The Soviets were also fighting millions of men along the largest front in history. The Western Allies on the other hand were only fighting a fraction of what the USSR was facing. During the Battle of Stalingrad [1] alone, the axis lost more men than they did throughout the three years they spent fighting in Africa [2]. The fact that the USSR lost more soldiers and civilians than all other allied countries combined doesn"t really undermine the Soviet contribution. The fact remains that fighting the Soviet Union 80% of the German military was destroyed [3]. In addition to this, all of the Romanian, Finnish, and most of the Croatian soldiers died. You also state that the western allies had to fight in many different parts of the world including against Japan. The Soviets also had to fight in many places and the invasion of Manchuria by Soviet forces was Japan"s largest defeat. It was also a major reason for Japan"s surrender [4]. In addition to this, the Soviets were fighting Japan at the Battle of Lake Khasan [5], the Battle of Khalkhin Gol [6] in 1938 and 1939. However this debate is about the European theater and whether the Western Allies or the Soviet Union did more to defeat Germany. The Western Allies fought in many places, just like the Soviet Union did. And the Western Allied forces were not wide spread. In France during 1944/1945 for example, the western allies outnumbered German forces 15:1[7][8]. The Soviets fought on a front on the other hand stretches from northern Maine to southern Florida.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.theatlantic.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

REBUTTAL FOR ARGUMENT 3: "Britain"s Superior Royal Air Force"
Britain did have Air superiority by 1941 over Germany. However this is not an argument.
CONCLUSION: You only had one argument about the Soviets entering WWII late in 1941. You don't have three arguments. You mostly pointed out some basic history facts. Anyway, good luck in round 3.
JimmyRusltler

Con

I will start by saying that you may have missed my points.

Rebuttal for your argument 1.
The Western Allies were not responsible for Germany breaking the treaty of Versailles, as Germany actioned its mass militarization in secret, as Hitler had planned in Mein Kampff. And because of Germany's Blitzkrieg tactics, it was able to cover mass amounts of land quickly and efficiently, so the allies had barely any time to react before Germany had taken over huge amounts of territory. Also Britain and France were not in the position to give aid to Spain, as they were preparing for a war, whilst the Soviets were sitting on the sidelines for now. The only point you have in this argument is that the Soviets gave a bit of aid to Spain; this does not prove that they played a greater role in defeating Germany, not to mention Spain was then taken over, just like you said.

Rebuttal for your argument 2.
I disagree that WWII was decided on the eastern front. Yes roughly 80% of Germany's forces were destroyed by the Soviet but without the allied forces, taking out the Luftwaffe, defending North Africa and parts of Iran, This was far more important than the Soviets advance as it stopped Axis forces from encroaching on far more strategical and important land. Not to mention with the Luftwaffe being destroyed, the Soviets did not have to contend with any German air force which could have potentially turned the tide of the whole Soviet advance. Also 80% of German MILITARY, this does not include German Naval forces, or Air Force.

Rebuttal for your argument 3.
You have neglected to mention that the Allies (America mainly) assisted in the capture of Berlin and played a major role in the capture, as if only the Soviets had attacked Berlin, almost all of the German forces would have been counter attacking the Soviets. The Soviets were not the only reason that Hitler committed suicide (if that is the true story).

I will now rebut your Rebuttals.

Rebuttal for your Rebuttal 1.
On the contrary, it does support my debate as it shows that the Soviets missed much of the opening conflict between the allies and Germany. No, the Allies didn't split Europe like USSR; the Germans invaded the land and took it by force, while the Soviets took equal parts of Poland to subdue any conflict. Yes the Allies did have a non-aggression pact, BEFORE THE WAR. It was the treaty of Versailles. The Allies were fighting the war before the Soviets even had any inclination of joining the war. The point of the USSR had been fighting fascism way before the allies is irrelevant, we are talking about who had a greater role not who has been fighting longer. And with you point about Spain and everything that follows, see my arguments above.

Rebuttal for your Rebuttal 2.
Yes the Allies destroyed less military than the Soviets, but they captured more strategic territory, defended more countries in various places, still made it to Berlin with the Soviets, and even had to contend with Japan a lot more than the Soviets did. Also the Soviets did incur more casualties mainly due to poor tactics and "kill if you retreat" method. If anything the Soviets could have done better to assist in the capture of Germany. Yes the Germans lost more people in Stalingrad than Africa, but the strategic importance of Africa cannot be understated. Also I would say the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (over 200,000 civilians killed and more underlying effect of destruction) were Japans greatest defeat, and actually made them surrender. The Soviets also outnumbered the whole German military, yet the Soviets still did not use the mass military they had effectively, and only used it for Soviet purposes, not for the war and the conflict, but to neutralize a threat for themselves. If they had used their military to the full potential, the Germans could have been defeated quicker and fewer casualties would have occurred. Also the Soviets never fought in America during WWII; don’t know where you got that from.

Rebuttal for your Rebuttal 3.
I was stating that the RAF had destroyed the Luftwaffe, eliminating it from attacking the Soviets, and potentially turning the tide of the war. The Allies destroyed it; therefore the allies played a major part in defeating Germany.

In conclusion, you seem to be moving in the direction of how many German forces the Soviets killed which does not necessarily mean that the Soviets did more.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... (Treaty of Versailles)
http://en.wikipedia.org... (Mein Kampff/f)
http://en.wikipedia.org... (Japan and Atom Bomb)
http://history1900s.about.com... (Soviet Non-aggression pact)
http://en.wikipedia.org... (General other information in my paragraphs)

Debate Round No. 3
STALIN

Pro

I will simply write paragraphs for each of the thoughts that I had after reading your article.

The Western Allies were responsible for allowing Germany for breaking the Treaty of Versailles, allowing Germany and Italy to invade neighboring countries as well as enable the Fascists in Spain to win, and to appease the European axis in many other ways. When Hitler began to rebuild his military, the Western Allies stood and watched. Britain and France could have sent aid to Spain but they didn"t. Spain completely relied on the Soviet Union to save them from the Fascist rebels. Without Soviet aid, the Fascist rebels would have won much quicker. Had Britain and France not appeased Germany, then Germany and Italy would never even have contemplated starting a war.
The Second World War was decided on the eastern front. Roughly 80% of the Germany army was destroyed in the east. Most of the famous panzers and tigers, the backbone of the German Wehrmacht were crushed in the east. In addition to this, your statement that the Western Allies destroyed most of the German Luftwaffe is completely untrue considering the fact that 50% of the Luftwaffe was destroyed in the east. The German navy was not really important considering the fact that most of Europe was invaded by Germany without the aid of the navy. Also, a large part of the German navy was destroyed in the Black and Baltics Seas fighting the Soviets. However my earlier statement still stands, the German navy did little in the war although the U-boats (submarines, not navy) were vital.
You incorrectly state that the Western Allies assisted in the capture of Berlin. The Soviets encircled the city and captured it, street by street. The Western Allies halted 50 miles from the city.
American supplies which you talk about, only made up 15% of total Soviet production and by 1943, the USSR was producing 3 times as much as Germany.

Now I will compare the different reasons for the German defeat in WWII

Some of the reasons for the German defeat in WWII.
- Losing in Africa.
In Africa, Germany lost less than it did during the first 6 months of the war in the eastern front. Although you state that Africa was an important piece of land, that cannot be true considering the fact that Africa was all desert.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

- Losing in Italy
Minor engagements were fought in Italy and it was a fairly small front and unimportant front.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)

- American Lend Lease
Important American supplies certainly saved Britain from defeat but besides that, those supplies never did much since supplies cannot "kill" anybody nor capture a city.
- Allied invasion of France
Came late and had no effect on the outcome of the war. Churchill promised a second front in 1942, then in 1943. The second front came just in time to make sure the Soviets did not conquer all of Europe.
- Allied bombings
Terrorized civilians, yet the war could have been won without this.

If you look at all those fronts and contributions you will see how minor they were.

CONCLUSION:
The fact that the Western Allies fought on multiple fronts while the Soviets only fought on the eastern front says nothing. The front and fighting in the east was on a larger scale than all of the other fronts combined. You can argue that the Soviets helped Hitler establish himself, but the truth is that Britain and France played an equal, if not greater role in allowing Germany to rebuild in the 1930"s and construct the Luftwaffe and navy, even Panzers were only constructed by Germany because the Western Allies permitted them to do so. The fact remains that the Soviets were at peace with Germany for only 2 years. Germany and Italy were appeased by the Western Allies for 6 years. The Soviets may have fought Germany for 4 years while Britain and France fought for 6 years but Germany lost more men in 1941 alone while fighting the Soviets than they did in 1939-41 fighting Britain and France. Roughly 50% of the Lufftwaffe and 80% of the Wehrmacht were destroyed in the east and that alone proves who did more to defeat Germany. The Western Allies stood on the sidelines until 11 months before the end of the war by which time it was clear Germany would lose.
Additional Sources:
Historian Lectures and Documentaries:
(Why Germany lost WWII)
(Importance of the Eastern Front)
(Myths and Realities about the Eastern Front)
(WWII from Space)
JimmyRusltler

Con

Generally what you have done is re say your arguments and then re-vamp them a little. So please refer to my previous arguments, E.g. how the Allies had no knowledge of Germany breaking the treaty of Versailles through mass militarization.

You stated that the U.S. did not assist in the capture of Berlin, yet they did, they severed Hitlers last escape route causing him to commit suicide. They did not necessarily capture Berlin (they were about half a mile away) but they did assist in the capture of Berlin and stop Hitler escaping.

When Germany lost in Africa, Germany was essentially halted from invading any more land, including a very strategic point where supply lines with Japan could have been easily made. And the argument that "it cannot be important because it is a desert" is ludicrous. Evidently it is much more than a desert but a strategic point.

With the American supplies, again it is ludicrous to say that they are un-important! How can someone capture a city with no ammo, food, shelter or tools?

Yes the allied invasion of France was important, as it cut back German troops, how can you say the capture of new land is not important to war? You cannot just cut the head off of a hydra and think it is dead. If Hitler had been killed earlier it does not mean the whole Nazi regime would fall!

The fact that the Western Allies fought on multiple fronts (and more than the Soviets) does say a lot as it proves my point of this debate.

Also yes the Allies were appeased by western Allies for 6 years before the war, but the Soviets were at peace DURING the war. And indeed they did lose more men, but that does not prove that they did more in that time. The fact remains that there was more strategic advance and capture by the Allies rather than the Soviets.

Also the Luftwaffe destroyed most of the Soviet aircraft and only had a minor defeat to the Soviets after they deployed strategic fighters. The rest were defeated by Britain and bombed by the RAF in the Luftwaffe air force base.

Also you have presented a new argument by listing the comparisons of Germany's defeat.

In conclusion, you have only rebutted a few of my arguments and poorly constructed a rebuttal to a few of my major points. Please refrain from making new arguments and stick to the debate topic, rather than diverting off on "who killed more".

http://en.wikipedia.org... (allies invading Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org... (Luftwaffe)
Debate Round No. 4
STALIN

Pro

"Generally what you have done is re say your arguments and then re-vamp them a little."

No, I simply rebut your arguments and you often restate your arguments with different wording.

"...how the Allies had no knowledge of Germany breaking the treaty of Versailles through mass militarization."

The Western Allies were well aware that Germany had broken the Treaty of Versailles and was quickly rebuilding its military. After all, Britain and France were two of the countries that made the treaty. The only reason they did nothing when Germany broke the treaty was because they were afraid of having another war.

"You stated that the U.S. did not assist in the capture of Berlin, yet they did, they severed Hitler"s last escape route causing him to commit suicide."

Actually, the USA stopped some 50 miles from Berlin on the west bank of the Elbe River. The Soviets completely encircled Germany forces in Berlin and Hitler was also there in that pocket.
Map: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com...

"When Germany lost in Africa, Germany was essentially halted from invading any more land, including a very strategic point where supply lines with Japan could have been easily made. And the argument that "it cannot be important because it is a desert" is ludicrous. Evidently it is much more than a desert but a strategic point."

Africa had no economic or strategic importance. The only reason Hitler bothered to send men there was to save Italy, like they had to do in Greece. Those soldiers in Africa could have been much more useful on the eastern front. Also in order to link up with Japan, Germany would still have had to fight through Egypt, the Middle East, and India. If Germany made a linked up with Japan then nothing would really happen since Japan was busy up to the neck fighting the USA, China, and Australia in the Pacific and most of the German forces were stuck on the eastern front. So the war in Africa was unimportant compared to the fighting that was happening on the eastern front. Like I said earlier, Germany lost more men at Stalingrad alone than it did during the three years it spent fighting the allies in Africa.

"With the American supplies, again it is ludicrous to say that they are un-important! How can someone capture a city with no ammo, food, shelter or tools?"

Yes ammo, food, and tools are important. However my point is that the Soviets were producing much more than Germany so although American supplies basically saved Britain, they were minor in the east. Also, American and British tanks that were sent to the east were inferior to most German and Soviet tanks and did little.

"Yes the allied invasion of France was important, as it cut back German troops, how can you say the capture of new land is not important to war?"

The allied invasion of France had no effect on the outcome of the war. By 1944 the German was down to boys and old men and it was clear they would lose; only Hitler saw otherwise. The Western Allies signed a deal with the USSR that they would open a second front in France as early as 1942 which they never did so the Western Allies made this same promise to open a second front in 1943. Once again, they never did. Only by 1944, when it was clear Germany would lose was the second front opened. That is why Germany was outnumbered 15:1 by the Western Allies during D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge by which time there were 3 million allied troops in France.

"The fact that the Western Allies fought on multiple fronts (and more than the Soviets) does say a lot as it proves my point of this debate."

The Western Allies fought on small fronts in Africa, Italy, and France. Small and unimportant compared to the eastern front. However what you don"t seem to realize is that although the Soviet-German front is often referred to as the Eastern Front, there were many different fronts throughout WWII which made up the Eastern Front. This link has a list of all of those fronts. Some are larger and more important and others smaller and less important.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(military_formation) Scroll down to see the Soviet WWII fronts.

"Also yes the Allies were appeased by western Allies for 6 years before the war, but the Soviets were at peace DURING the war. And indeed they did lose more men, but that does not prove that they did more in that time. The fact remains that there was more strategic advance and capture by the Allies rather than the Soviets."

Out of everything you said so far, this is the most incorrect. The Soviets were at peace for two years in a war that wasn"t theirs to fight. Just like the USA was at peace until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor 6 months following the German invasion of the USSR. Your strongest argument seems to be that the USSR was at peace while the western allies were fighting. Funny, in 1939 Britain and France signed a pact to defend Poland in the case of a German invasion however it took them two days to declare war on Germany following this invasion and then they just sat behind the Maginot line while Germany invaded Poland in two weeks. Then the Western Allies lost Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, and almost Britain. My point is that most of Europe was losing the war until the Soviets entered. The only reason Germany lost in Africa was because he needed all of the 3.8 million men for the Eastern Front; he could only spare about 150,000 to send to Africa.

"Also the Luftwaffe destroyed most of the Soviet aircraft and only had a minor defeat to the Soviets after they deployed strategic fighters. The rest were defeated by Britain and bombed by the RAF in the Luftwaffe air force base."

Germany did destroy many Soviet planes; however that does not change the fact that some 50% of the Luftwaffe was destroyed in the east.

"Also you have presented a new argument by listing the comparisons of Germany's defeat."

No I was simply trying to show you how insignificant the fighting that the western allies endured was compared to what happened on the eastern front and how small and unimportant the fronts the western allies fought on were. It is safe to assume that the USSR basically saved Britain. Another 100,000 out of the ~3.5 million man German army and Britain would be toast long before American boots ever set foot in Morocco.

"In conclusion, you have only rebutted a few of my arguments and poorly constructed a rebuttal to a few of my major points."

Well you only had a few arguments to begin with and I replied to all of them.

"Please refrain from making new arguments and stick to the debate topic, rather than diverting off on "who killed more"."

I was simply explaining that the reason Germany lost the war was not because it lost a few hundred thousand men fighting the western allies in Africa, Italy, and France, but because they lost millions fighting the Soviets on the eastern front. Hopefully that clears up the confusion.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Also, you say that the Soviets lost a many men while the Western Allies made full use of their manpower and inflicted more damage to Germany with what they had. I supposed your talking about the German invasion of France where an outnumbered German army destroyed an allies army of 2.3 million while only suffering ~160,000 casualties. http://en.wikipedia.org... Anyway, whatever your point is, saying that "over 25 million Soviets died during WWII" isn't an argument. The fact remains that all sides of WWII endured heavy losses, some more than others. The reason the Soviets suffered more than any other country was because they were fighting and killing more axis soldiers than any other country which helps prove my point about the USSR playing the most important role in defeating Germany.

CONCLUSION:
Clearly I have stronger arguments. Out of the three arguments that Con provided, only one of them makes any sense for this debate. On the other hand, if you look at the statistics of what the Soviets did in WWII to defeat Germany and the scale of the fighting that took place, you can safely assume that the Western Allies did little. This is especially true if you consider the fact that the Western Allies fought on the sidelines until 11 months until the end of the war while the Soviets endured the bulk of the German military. The first real losses Hitler suffered were in the east. The last real losses that Hitler suffered were also in the east.

Historians generally agree that there were three main turning points in the war in Europe:

1. The Battle of Moscow showed that Hitler would not win a quick victory on his own Terms.
2. The Battle of Stalingrad showed Germany would lose the war; the only question would be how badly. Would it be total destruction or a negotiated peace?
3. The Battle of Kursk showed that the only path left for Germany is total destruction, that Germany would lose sooner or later.
(Video two proves/explains this)

Although the victory over Nazi Germany was a joint effort, it is clear that the USSR played by far the most important role.

VOTE PRO!
JimmyRusltler

Con

Stalin has pulled all the stops out for this round! Well done :)

"No, I simply rebut your arguments and you often restate your arguments with different wording."

Simply put, I feel as though you keep saying the same points as word fillers rather than expanding on them. I, however, have been refraining from doing that but I have found it difficult as you keep circling back to the original statement causing me to re state my rebuttal.

"The Western Allies were well aware that Germany had broken the Treaty of Versailles"

The Allied forces were only aware that Germany had built up a little military, but assumed that it was because the threat of Russia, as that is what the Allies were wary of too. However the allies did do nothing about Germany increasing their military because it was seen as "too little" and because they simply wanted to avoid conflict.

"Actually, the USA stopped some 50 miles from Berlin on the west bank of the Elbe River."
That was my mistake; British 21st Army Group crossed the Elbe River. I meant Allies. But as stated previously, Hitler's last escape route was cut off by the U.S. "With his escape route to the south severed by the 12th U.S." (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

"Africa had no economic or strategic importance"
On the contrary, Germany and Italy had colonial interests and the strategic value was simply an expanse into a continent which the U.S. would have extreme trouble in invading due to the amount of land which needed reconnaissance. This (if successful) would have spread the U.S. troops out even further. And your comparison is accurate, yet neglecting the fact that this is ONE of my arguments to prove my point. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

"American supplies basically saved Britain; they were minor in the east"
Saying that Britain was minor in the east is illogical. Britain was one of the main powers in the east and responsible for countless deaths, recaptures and victories against Nazi soldiers.

"The allied invasion of France had no effect on the outcome of the war."
Agreed that the France re-capture should have been executed earlier. But I disagree that it had no effect on the outcome of the war. Sure the war was on its last legs but the re-capture of France meant less German troops in certain areas, and made it easier to push the Germans back into Berlin, rather than to have been flanked by straggling Nazi's from France.

"The Western Allies fought on small fronts in Africa, Italy, and France. Small and unimportant compared to the eastern front. "
You say they are small and un-important, yet without them it seems that Germany would have won the war. The western fronts halted Germany's advance on other western countries. It is ignorant to say they played a small role as they are a huge reason the Allies won the war.

"Out of everything you said so far, this is the most incorrect."
1. True it was not their war, yet the strength of the German military was obvious to the Soviets during those two years, and it was obvious that Germany was preparing to pull a "Napoleon Bonaparte" as they were reinforcing their eastern front. (http://www.britannica.com...)
2. Yes the U.S. was not directly (directly being the key word) involved in the war until after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, yet they were still supplying the RAF with Lockheed jet engines and military supplies. Not to mention a mass gathering of troops and naval force before they got involved does sound like they were preparing to declare war. Otherwise, why would Japan bother to bomb Pearl Harbor if it was not a threat? (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
3. I will now refer to a pop-culture reference in response to "however it took them two days to declare war on Germany"
One does not simply declare war in one day.
4. In response to "they just sat behind the Maginot line while Germany invaded Poland in two weeks". If Germany was able to invade Poland so quickly, do you honestly think it would have been possible for the Allies to immediately put up an effective counter offensive without incurring more loss than gain?
5. "My point is that most of Europe was losing the war until the Soviets entered." Might I also point out that the U.S. also joined the war in December 1941, while the Soviets joined the war in June 1941? My point here is that it's odd to just assume it was the Soviets when there are many other variables in play whilst the Soviets joined the war.
6. "The only reason Germany lost in Africa was because he needed all of the 3.8 million men for the Eastern Front; he could only spare about 150,000 to send to Africa." War is not just fought with man-power, but also with tactics, insight and reconnaissance. Sure he needed many of his men to fight the Soviets, but that does not prove that the Soviets had a bigger impact. It just proves there were more Soviets than allies.

"Germany did destroy many Soviet planes; however that does not change the fact that some 50% of the Luftwaffe was destroyed in the east."
Again as stated in the previous round, it was only a minor loss to the Luftwaffe.

"No I was simply trying to show you how insignificant the fighting that the western allies endured was compared to what happened on the eastern front and how small and unimportant the fronts the western allies fought on were." That essentially is an argument, and since it does not coincide with your 1st three points, you have broken your own rule. Also I do not think that the Soviets saved Britain, I think it was more RAF tactics, and the U.S. rather than the self-absorbed Soviets.

"Saying that "over 25 million Soviets died during WWII" isn't an argument"
I was more eliminating any point of you saying that the Soviets had superior tactics or anything similar to that. Also I will refer back to killing more soldiers does not necessarily mean that the Soviets played the most vital role, as I have proven in previous rounds.

In Conclusion: The points of which I have addressed clearly tie into the actual debate topic, rather than diverting off into just what the Soviets did. My opponent has mainly gone into statistics about how many Soviet soldiers were killed and how many Germans the Soviets killed, which (again) does not prove his point. My opponent has also made various new arguments in his debate and tried to disguise them, this is a direct violation of his own rules. He has also used indirect terms when referring to historical events.
I will not recap my arguments:
1. The Soviets were delayed in entering the war, which proves they had no intention of fighting and only had their own motives, not that of others. This also ties into that the only main enemy they had were the Germans while the Allies had numerous other enemies such as Japan and Italy.
2. The Allied Powers had less manpower and economic power yet did more damage. This can be proven by how much territory and countries the Allies actually defeated and defended, while the Soviets were more concerned about their own lines and were too self-absorbed to help.
3. The RAF destroyed the Luftwaffe making it so the Soviets did not have to contend with any German air force or sir supply drops.

Essentially my opponent seemed to undermine my arguments by trying to prove how UN important the Allies fronts, battles and defense were. Even going as far as saying they did not help the war at all. Yet my opponent still failed to prove this with any proper argument.

I thank my opponent for an intellectual and well fought debate.

Vote CON!!
Debate Round No. 5
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Whatever, I won't do it again lol. But I doubt anybody will read all these comments anyway.
Posted by JimmyRusltler 3 years ago
JimmyRusltler
It's all good. It refrain from "ending up too chaotic" to put it in your own words.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
OK Mr. Jimmy. I never read the rules for DDO. I appreciate you telling me.
Posted by JimmyRusltler 3 years ago
JimmyRusltler
Yes dude. Posting further debates once the debate is over is cheating. If you were trying to "get more points in" now is not the time to do it. Why not re do the debate with someone else if your not happy with the outcome?
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Cheating? Nah.
Posted by JimmyRusltler 3 years ago
JimmyRusltler
no. It is legit cheating.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Please regard these comments. Clearly Jimmy is just trolling.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Voters, don't listen to Jimmy. Listen to Comrade Stalin!
Posted by JimmyRusltler 3 years ago
JimmyRusltler
Voters, please disregard his comments, as i wont rebut them (even though i could) as it is contradictory to a well functioning and fair debate.
Posted by JimmyRusltler 3 years ago
JimmyRusltler
Dude, the Debates over... leave it to the voters and stop trying to cheat.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by austinlaam 3 years ago
austinlaam
STALINJimmyRusltlerTied
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: Both had good arguments. I will grant Con 2 point for reliable sources.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
STALINJimmyRusltlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides used Wikipedia overwhelmingly which sucked. Documentaries are usually frowned upon from what I recently heard, so I give Con conduct, but I did feel that the arguments were tied.