The role of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies
What were the Western Allies doing at the time of Stalingrad and Kursk? During the Stalingrad battle the best the Western Allies could do was to finally drive German and Italian forces out of Africa after three long years of fighting. During Kursk? The Western Allies were playing fiddle in Sicily. And what were the Soviets doing when the U.S., Britain, and Canada were trying their best to carve out a larger beachhead at Normandy? The Soviets were crushing the German Army Group Center, its biggest concentration of forces. The U.S. and Britain would not have even launched their invasion of Normandy if the Soviets had not already broken the back of Germany on the Eastern Front and ensured that it was militarily crippled. D-Day was most certainly not the turning point of the war and its biggest importance was to ensure that the Soviets wouldn't.
end up "liberating" France. Basically the U.S. and Britain picked away around the margins while the Soviets were in the knock down, drag out fight of their lives to decide the outcome of the war. With the outcome no longer in doubt as Germany had been crippled already the U.S. and Britain then were able to mount an invasion of Normandy. Anybody who doesn't realize that the war was decided on the Eastern Front and that everything else was a sideshow by comparison doesn't know that much about World War II.
Let me compare some of the Battles that the Western Allies fought with the Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk.
The Second Battle of El Alamein is considered to be one of the most important battles of WWII. In this battle the axis suffered 30,542 casualties. 
At the Battle of the Bulge, Germany suffered approximately 80,000 casualties. 
At Stalingrad, the Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties. 
At Kursk, the Germans suffered 250,000-300,000 casualties. 
As for the Western Allied bombings, they had no effect on the outcome of the war. While the Western Allies were bombing and terrorizing German cities and destroying factories, the Soviets were bombing the German front lines along a 2,000 mile long front.
Britain promised to open a second front in 1942, yet failed to do so. Then Churchill said he would open a second front in France in 1943, and once again failed to do so. While the Western Allies stood on the sidelines until 11 months before the war ended, the Soviet were killing Germans in the millions on the eastern front. 
Historians generally agree that there were three turning points in the war:
The Battle of Moscow - ensured Germany would not win a quick war on its terms.
The Battle of Stalingrad - ensured Germany would lose the war, the only question would be how badly. Would it be total defeat or a negotiated peace?
The Battle of Kursk - answered this question. The only option left for Germany would be unconditional surrender.
I admit that the role of the Soviet Union was important on defeating Germany, but not greater than of the Western Allies.
The first countries to enter the war against Germany were Britain and France, while the USSR collaborated with the Germans to dominate Poland! And with that the soviets sent natural resources to Germany(like oil and coal), which helped the German war effort against the West.
Second, while Germany was helping Italy by invading the countries in the Balkans the UK sent troops to protect those countries, while the Soviet Union did nothing, just helping the Germans by sending them resources.
After 1941, when the Germans already invaded the Soviet Union, Germany lost it's soviet oil source and had only Romania. Romania's oil wasn't enough, so the other option was to invade the Middle East. England stood against the Nazi's in Africa so they could not get to the Middle Eats and drill it's oil. By this way Germany had less oil and more need of it only because the West actions.
"And with that the soviets sent natural resources to Germany(like oil and coal), which helped the German war effort against the West."
The Soviets didn't really send supplies to the Germans. I would agree that they helped Germany by signing the non-agression pact instead of declaring war, however if you want voters to believe that the Soviets sent supplies to Germany then you will need to find sources for support. Germany would have won in the west without any supplies sent by a foreign power.
"The first countries to enter the war against Germany were Britain and France, while the USSR collaborated with the Germans to dominate Poland!"
I agree, the first countries to enter the war were Britain, France, and Poland. One of the last countries to enter the war was the United States, also part of the Western Alliance. Poland fought alongside the Soviet army more than it fought with the Western Allies so I would consider them to be part of the eastern front in 1944, before that, Poland was basically fighting alone. By Western Allies I mean countries that actually fought WITH Britain and France. Such examples would be Norway and Greece. You claim that since the Soviets signed a non-agression pact with Germany, the Western Allies played a more important role. You could not be more incorrect. Britain and France appeased Germany from 1933-1939. They allowed Germany to invade Chzecoslovakia, Austria, and the Rhinelands. In addition, Britain and France did nothing when Germany broke the treaty of Versailles. The Western Allies did not fight Germany until they were not attacked. As did the Soviet Union and the United States.
"After 1941, when the Germans already invaded the Soviet Union, Germany lost it's soviet oil source and had only Romania. Romania's oil wasn't enough, so the other option was to invade the Middle East. England stood against the Nazi's in Africa so they could not get to the Middle Eats and drill it's oil. By this way Germany had less oil and more need of it only because the West actions."
In the summer of 1942, Germany launched Case Blue with the purpose of capturing Stalingrad and the OIL FIELDS of the Caucuses. From there, Germany could invade the Middle East and Capture the oil fields which were lightely defended by British troops. Germany would have had unlimited oil had they captured Baku, however the Soviets stopped them.
Stalingrad is Volgograd on the map.
First of all, I'm sorry I didn't put any sources. I'll do it this time(my first debate).
"The Soviets didn't really send supplies to the Germans. I would agree that they helped Germany by signing the non-aggression pact instead of declaring war[...] Germany would have won in the west without any supplies sent by a foreign power. "
Really? Germany would have won? During the Nazi period Germany could only supply for 25% of it's oil needs and faced the same situation with chrome, tungsten, nickel, molybdenum and manganese, all which were needed for tanks, ships and other war equipment. Not to mention rubber, essential to a countries industry. Germany got 80% of it's rubber from imports, but since the British and the Dutch stopped selling rubber and other resources from their colonies to the Germans they had to look to another source of natural resources. The United States were German's mains supplier but they knew that with the war Americans would stop sending them resources and looked to the USSR as a possible supplier.¹
When the war started it was necessary for Germany to make an agreement with the Soviets. German demands only increased while they dominated other countries and the Soviet Union could provide the resources for the occupation. This is what Germany receive from the Soviets only between 11 February 1940 until the the Nazi invasion of the USSR:
I'm sorry, but yes, the Soviets did send resources to Germany.
"Poland fought alongside the Soviet army more than it fought with the Western Allies so I would consider them to be part of the eastern front in 1944, before that, Poland was basically fighting alone."
Ok, I agree with that.
"You claim that since the Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, the Western Allies played a more important role. You could not be more incorrect. Britain and France appeased Germany from 1933-1939. They allowed Germany to invade Chzecoslovakia, Austria, and the Rhineland's. In addition, Britain and France did nothing when Germany broke the treaty of Versailles. The Western Allies did not fight Germany until they were not attacked. As did the Soviet Union and the United States."
5Ok, let's talk about the pre-war period and who appeased whom. in France, from 1933-1940 11 from the 13 governments where leftists.³ These leftists government's really did nothing to stop the Germans. They only waited to the Germans magically disarm themselves(4).
In the UK, there where 3 governments from 1933-1939, which the first was a leftist and the other two where conservatives(5). From 1931-1935 the government from Ramsay MacDonald(National Labour) and his party insisted in opposing to the rearmament. The following government of Stanley Baldwin(1935-1937) started a rearmament(6). Then, the government of Neville Chamberlain tried to stop Germany from annexing other countries but could do nothing because he didn't had any great allies in Europe as French leftist government's did not believe in a war against Germany for a long time(7).
So you're partially correct. It wasn't Britain and France that appeased Germany, but the European left. And I'm right on saying that the Western Allies played a more important role than the Soviets. As I said, Britain tried to stop the war, while the Soviet even collaborated whit the Nazi's!
"In the summer of 1942, Germany launched Case Blue with the purpose of capturing Stalingrad and the OIL FIELDS of the Caucuses. From there, Germany could invade the Middle East and Capture the oil fields which were lightely defended by British troops. Germany would have had unlimited oil had they captured Baku, however the Soviets stopped them."
But the Germans where in Africa since 1940 fighting alongside with Italians only against the British. If they had defeated the British in North Africa and got to the Middle East, they would not need Case Blue.(8)
4 Jean Robi, "Le livre noir de la gauche", pgs 52-56
However Con completely ignores my statements from the very first round about how the Soviets played the most important role in destroying the German military machine. 80% of the German forces were destroyed in the east. In addition to this, all of the Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian casualties were on the eastern front. In Operation Barbarossa which lasted just a little over 5 months, the Soviet forces inflicted 850,000 casualties upon the German forces. Compare this to the German invasion of France where the Nazis only suffered 163,650 casualties. Well, that is if you can compare these statistics. The Soviets may have entered the war late, however their contribution was greater than that of any other country. Now lets compare Case Blue where the axis suffered over 1 million casualties with the three years that the allies spent fighting in Africa where Germany and Italy only suffered ~500,000 casualties. Once again, no comparison.
Con spends a most of his time trying to imply that the USSR did not play a greater role in WWII because it sent supplies to Germany BEFORE IT WAS IN THE WAR. The Soviet military contributions overshadow the mistakes that the country made by trusting Hitler. And the Soviets were not the only ones who made that mistake. Britain and France believed that Hitler would stop expanding as he promised so they appeased him and hoped he would keep his promise.
Then Con states that Germany would not have had any need to launch Case Blue had the Western Allies not stalled the German advance in Africa. He could not be more incorrect. Hitler's dream was to enslave all of the Soviet Union west of the Ural Mountains. And Stalingrad was west of the caucuses. So it wouldn't really matter whether he tried to go for Stalingrad or Moscow in 1942, he would still need to capture both. I would also like to remind Con that the reason the Middle Eastern oil fields did not fall was because the Soviets did not allow von Kleist to break through the Caucuses and into the Middle East.
I would also like to state that about half of Con's sources do not support the arguments he stated in the previous rounds.
Pro says I ignored his statements from the first round. I did, but I shouldn't because most of them are WRONG.
Pro states:" 80% of the German forces were destroyed in the east."
It's false. 80% of the German forces were in the Eastern Front in June 1942, but they weren't all destroyed. Second, in 1943 the 63% of the German forces were in the East, so state that the soviets destroyed 80% of the German military force is wrong because this isn't even the percentage of it's forces in the East. I would like to know where Pro got this information.(1)
At one point Pro starts talking about deaths. He gives me the German deaths during the Battle of France and Operation Barbarosa. Then he demands me to compare the statistics. I don't want to lose time on this issue. because I already showed that the German deaths in the East weren't at the percentage he thought they were. And I would like to raise the point that during the German invasion of Russia both sides suffered with the winter, diseases and famine, which I took the lives of many soldiers.(2)
Now, to support my arguments that the Western Allies had a greater role in defeating the Germans than the USSR.
Although I have to admit that the men mobilized by the USSR during the war was very impressive, it does not beat the number of the Western Allies.
The Soviet Union mobilized 20 million men, while the major Western countries(USA, UK and France, not counting colonies) mobilized 21.69 million men.(3)
2. Weapon's production(1941-1945)(4)
The United States and the United Kingdom produced way more war weapon's than the USSR. I'm talking about aircrafts, large vessels and tanks produced by this countries during the period of 1941-1945.
During this period the United Stated produced 306182 aircrafts; Great Britain 108560; and the USSR 137271. By the way, the United States sent 14795 aircrafts to the Soviet Union during the war.
The United States produced 6958; the UK 951; and the Soviet Union only 128. I admit that the Soviets didn't fight much with the Germans on the sea, but the West did.
This one the Soviets produced the most, but not as much as the United States and the United Kingdom together.
USA, 78079; UK, 28028; USSR; 99488
My opponent argues that the battles won by the Soviets were more important and caused more damage to the Germans than those won by the West. He starts with Moscow.
"The defense of Moscow in late 1941 guaranteed that the Germans couldn't win the war in 1941."
Germans didn't win the battle, but the Soviets did not play a decisive role on defeating them. The lack of German planning for the operation and the extremely cold winter contributed more for the German failure on taking Moscow than the Red Army. The cold temperatures made the German soldiers freeze, as neither their close or their equipment were made for the cold Russian winter.(5) Nazi stupidity and mother nature saved the USSR, not the Soviets.
"The campaign in the south (Case Blue) leading up to the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Stalingrad itself sealed Germany's fate, there was no way that it could win the war after its crushing defeat at Stalingrad in which it lost all of 6th Army, part of 4th Panzer Army and a great amount of Romanian, Hungarian and Italian forces. Stalingrad wrapped up in early February 1943. From that point on Germany couldn't win the war."
Now he talks about Stalingrad. I agree that Stalingrad was a decisive battle but why from that point on Germany couldn't win the war? I mean, after the Nazis defeating the French it would be reasonable to think, by his logic, that the Allies wouldn't win.
"It tried a much smaller offensive in the summer of 1943 to try to pinch off the Kursk salient however Germany failed losing most of its remaining armored units in the process. After that it was all downhill for Germany."
"During Kursk? The Western Allies were playing fiddle in Sicily."
WHAT?! The Western Allies were PLAYING FIDDLE IN SICILY? The invasion of Sicily the decisive point of 1943. And the Germans only lost the battle of Kursk because of this invasion. He omits the fact that when Americans and British landed on Sicily on July 10, Hitler cancelled Operation Citadel(the codename for the German actions in Kursk) to defend Italy!! He knew the West now threatened Italy and Southern France. And it's worth reminding that Stalin(you, hahaha) pressured the West to open another front with Germany.(6)(7)
I would like to state again that the border shared between Germany and the Soviet Union made it easier for the Soviets to fight against the Germans, but my opponent apparently don't see this as a major point.
"Britain promised to open a second front in 1942, yet failed to do so. Then Churchill said he would open a second front in France in 1943, and once again failed to do so."
I'm sorry but your sources don't mention nothing about this.
"I would also like to remind Con that the reason the Middle Eastern oil fields did not fall was because the Soviets did not allow von Kleist to break through the Caucuses and into the Middle East."
REALLY?! So the British colonies in the Middle East were protected by soviets? Didn't Montgomery fought against Rommel in the desert of Egypt and Libya? And after the fall of France? Syria was a French colony with oil and THE BRITISH stood and protected them from the Vichy government, which was Hitler's ally.(8)
I would like to finish this round by responding to my opponent critic that my source did not support my stated arguments. For your information, yes they do and I was very specific, while your sources from the first round didn't support nothing.
3 David Jordan and Andrew Wiest, "Atlas of World War 2", page 248-249
6 David Jordan and Andrew Wiest, "Atlas of World War 2", page 119
8 David Jordan and Andrew Wiest, "Atlas of World War 2", page 67
It seems that Con has finally decided to address my arguments from round one, and even though he addresses some of them, he ignores several also. In addition to this, he has three new arguments which he believes strengthen his position. First, he states that the Western Allies mobilized more divisions than the Soviets. Second, he states that the Western Allies out produced the Soviets. And Finally, he tries to argue that the battles fought by the Western Allies were more important than those fought by the Soviets.
Con states that the Soviets only mobilized 20 million men and that the Western Allies mobilized 21.69 million men. Con's own sources prove otherwise. In Africa for example, the Western Allies only had a few hundred thousand men, less than a million combat troops. I would also like to point out that considering the fact that I cannot look at the information that Con provided in the books, four out of the eight sources can be disregarded. I take it that Con is new to DDO. Well I will just say that if he does not provide sources that one can actually SEE, then those sources can be ignored. Although Con gives everybody some unsupported facts about how many men the Soviets and the west mobilized, he does not state how this supports his position about the Western Allies doing more than the Soviets.
Con then talks about how the United States and the United Kingdom produced far more than the USSR. He provides no sources for this argument and I am not sure which, if any, of those eight sources at the bottom apply to this argument. I agree that the United States produced more than the USSR, however this does not support your position. In his second argument, Con basically points out a bunch of random numbers of what each side produced without giving any sources. Con does not say HOW those statistics show that the Western Allies did more in WWII than the Soviets.
Finally Con tried to show how important the Battles fought by the Western Allies really were. I am not sure why he is quoting my words from round one in round four. Anyway, Con tries to say that the reason Hitler lost at Moscow was because of Hitler's bad planning and the bad weather. His own source supports the fact that the Soviets lost over a million men in the attempt to stop Hitler from capturing Moscow. Con's own source also supports the fact that at the time, the Battle of Moscow was Hitler's largest defeat. And yet Con tried to diminish the Soviet contribution by saying that the Nazis made mistakes. The Germans did not prepare for the winter and therefor, the Soviet army had a relatively small impact on the outcome of the fighting. Interesting, Hitler did not prepare for an allied landing at Normandy, he expected the landing to be at Calais. Does that mean that Hitler's mistakes were more important than the fighting done by the British and American soldiers in order to liberate France? Hitler lost at Moscow because of the Soviet army, the winter simply helped. Just like Germany was defeated by the Soviet Army, the Western Allies simply helped.
After trying to diminish the importance of the Battle of Moscow, Con tried to diminish the importance of the Battles of Stalingrad. At Stalingrad, Hitler lost more men than he lost while fighting the Western Allies from 1939-1942. Stalingrad resulted in 850,000 German casualties. That is more than the axis lost during the three years spent fighting in Africa, Con's own sources prove this.
"WHAT?! The Western Allies were PLAYING FIDDLE IN SICILY? The invasion of Sicily the decisive point of 1943. And the Germans only lost the battle of Kursk because of this invasion. He omits the fact that when Americans and British landed on Sicily on July 10, Hitler cancelled Operation Citadel(the codename for the German actions in Kursk) to defend Italy!! He knew the West now threatened Italy and Southern France. And it's worth reminding that Stalin(you, hahaha) pressured the West to open another front with Germany."
Con now tries to diminish the importance of Kursk, one of the most important battles of WWII by saying that the allies had just landed in Sicily. At Kursk the Germans suffered around 250,000 casualties, his own sources prove that. At Kursk, the Soviets destroyed so many German tanks that after the battle, the Germans tanks were no longer really a threat to the allies at all. Con's sources show this so I do not need to prove anything. At Sicily, Germany and Italy lost about 150,000 men and no tanks. Which is more significant in terms of defeating Germany? Then Con tried to talk about how Hitler called off the Kursk offensive because the allies had invaded Sicily and might invade Italy. However the fact remains that Operation Citadel began before the Sicily landings. When Hitler called off the offensive, his Generals had mixed opinions. Some believed he should continue the advance. Others believed that they should withdraw due to Soviet buildup and counteroffensives that would soon start. Operation Kutuzov and Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev, the two Soviet counteroffensives following the Kursk offensive threatened to encircle large portions of the German army. Had Hitler continued the Kursk offensive he would have most likely lost considering the fact that the Soviets were preparing counteroffensives and outnumbered the Germans 2 to 1. These facts are proven by Con's sources.
"REALLY?! So the British colonies in the Middle East were protected by soviets? Didn't Montgomery fought against Rommel in the desert of Egypt and Libya? And after the fall of France? Syria was a French colony with oil and THE BRITISH stood and protected them from the Vichy government, which was Hitler's ally."
Yes, Montgomery did fight Rommel, I think we all know that. However what isn't known is that had the Soviets lost at Stalingrad, then the Germans would be able to invade the lightly defended oil fields of the Middle East. Clearly Con did not look at my map from round 2.
Finally Con wants me to prove that the Soviets defeated 80% of the Nazi Wehrmacht. First of all, I would like to state that in 1941, at the same time that Germany had 150,000 men in Africa, there were 3.5 million axis soldiers for Operation Barbarossa. Anyway, I will simply provide some sources that prove that roughly 80% of the German forces died in the east.
This source show that in North Africa and Italy, about 50,000 German soldiers died. On the eastern front, over a million Germans died. Please look carefully at the charts.
Although your sources may show that only 60% or so of the Germans were fighting in the east by 1944, this is only because of the heavy losses that the Germans suffered during the war.
Before start arguing, I would like to thank Pro for his understanding on me being new at Debate.org. And I would also like to apologize, I'll no longer use books as sources.
When I showed all that number I tried to say that the Western allies produced more for the war than the Soviet Union. His means that the Soviets did not have all the strength you state they had and therefore they would not win the war without the West's help. I here you can see the resources mobilization of each major power in WW2 http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...
You can see how the Western Allies production to the war was much bigger than the Soviet's.
I remember Pro saying something about Land Lease on round 1. Yes, the Lend Lease saved the Soviet Union from the Nazi's. While the Soviets had many rural areas under German control during most part of the war, they needed help to feed it's population. Then there is the situation of Russian roads. During the invasion the Nazi complained a lot about the roads in the Soviet Union. They were in a terrible situation With the Land Lease, America sent trucks to the Soviets, which could transport the men through the territory with less difficulty. Without those trucks, the Soviets would have never been able to mobilize as much men as they did and win the battles. Therefore, the Soviet success is mostly because of Western Allies help. 1
Pro complains about me trying to diminish the Soviet army importance on the Battle of Moscow and compares it with the invasion on Normandy. Well, while the Soviets were helped by the winter(a natural factor) and by Nazi's stupidity, the Allies in Normandy tricked the Germans. Pro forgot to mention Operation Fortitude, executed by the West with the intention of diverting the Axis away attention from Normandy. When did the Soviets ever made such thing like that? And answering his question, yes, because that was the Allies intention. They tricked Hitler to think the invasion was somewhere else. Then British and American soldiers successfully liberated France, exactly how it was expected. 2
Pro said I tried to diminish the battle of Kursk. I did not said that. I only said that the Soviets won the battle of Kursk because Hitler moved it's troops from Kursk to Sicily, where the Allies were invading. Therefore, they fought an weaker enemy and because of it they won. The soviets where lucky again. My own sources proves that before the Allies invasion of Sicily, the first hours of the battle of Kursk where a tactical defeat for the Red Army. 3
I would like Pro to think if the Soviets would win if Germany had took the Syrian oil fields after the battle of France. If Britain hadn't stopped them, I think the Soviets would have lost.
Pro still did not prove that 80% of German military machine was destroyed in the Eastern Front.
For the last argument stated by Pro: SERIOUSLY? You REALLY think that 60% of the German forces were in the East in 1944 only because of their heavy losses. Doesn't the invasion of SICILY or the NORMANDY had nothing to do with that?
If you take a look at the second table in this source then you will see that on the eastern front over a million German soldiers died while in Africa and Italy, only some 50,000 Germans died. In addition to this, the table shows all of the German soldiers that were wounded on all fronts of the war. In order to see how many German soldiers died fighting the Soviets then you will simply need to take a look at the eastern front, the Balkan front, and the Finnish/Scandinavian front. The table does not include the number of Romanian, Italian, Hungarian, Finnish, and other axis allies who fought alongside Germany.
In addition to my source, I compared some of the battles fought by the west and by the Soviets.
The Second Battle of El Alamein is considered to be one of the most important battles of WWII. In this battle the axis suffered 30,542 casualties.
At the Battle of the Bulge, Germany suffered approximately 80,000 casualties. 
At Stalingrad, the Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties. 
At Kursk, the Germans suffered 250,000-300,000 casualties. 
The Battles of El Alamein and the Bulge were the two most importance battles fought by the western powers which is why I compared them. Stalingrad and Kursk were the two most important battles fought by the Soviets which is why I compared them.
So far I have tried to prove that the Soviets did in fact kill 80% of the German forces. I may have failed in proving that the Soviets did defeat 80% of the German forces, however I proved that the Soviets defeated way more axis soldiers than the western powers did.
I would also like to point out that it was the Soviets who captured Berlin which was the reason Germany lost.
Con also tried to prove that lend-lease supplies saved the Soviet Union from defeat. Perhaps the Soviets would have lost had they not had those extra supplies. However I believe that the Soviet military contribution overshadows the supplies it received from Britain and France. Western allied supplied made up 15-25% of total Soviet production.  In addition to this, the only reason the Soviets needed the supplies was because of Stalin's stupidity. Stalin's stupidity was the reason that the Soviets lost most of their tanks and planes in the opening months of the war.
Although Con does do a good job explaining how lend-lease supplies helped the Soviets, he fails to prove that those supplies saved the Soviets. It is very likely that without those extra supplies the Soviets would still have won, it just would have taken much longer. I would also argue that the west depended on the Soviets more than the Soviets depended on the Western Allies. The vast majority of the German tanks and soldiers were defeated in the east. Had Hitler not attacked the USSR and finished off Britain instead then there would have been no Western Allies. I would agree that both the Western Allies and the Soviet Union played major roles in defeating the axis powers, however the main overall reason Germany lost was because of Hitler's incorrect decisions. Anyway, I think I have said enough on this topic.
I will now conclude:
Con's main arguments throughout this debate were that the Soviets helped Germany establish itself and that the Soviets were very dependent on allied supplies. My main arguments were that the Soviets destroyed the vast majority of the German army along with most of the Finnish, Romania, and Hungarian, divisions. I also argued that the most important battles of WWII (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, and Berlin) were all fought by the Soviets. Any one of these battles destroyed for more German divisions than the Western Allies destroyed in a single battle. I proved that from June 1941 until the end of the war in Europe, Hitler sent most of his army to fight against the Soviets. I proved that con's first main argument about the Soviets entering the war late was completely invalid because the Soviets made the mistake of trusting Hitler, the same mistake made by Britain and France. In addition to this, I explained that the USA, one of the most important allied countries, entered the war 6 months after the Soviets did. I also explained how Britain and France allowed Germany to rebuild its military and annex Austria and Czechoslovakia. The role of the western powers in allowing Germany to rebuild was just as great, if not greater than that of the USSR. Pro's first main argument is completely invalid. Con's second argument about the lend-lease supplies being important to the Soviets was very strong, however I proved that the Soviet military contribution overshadowed the supplies it received from the allies. Lend-lease supplies HELPED the Soviet Union WIN the war. While the Soviets were did most of the fighting, Britain and the US fought on the sidelines until 11 months before the end of the war when the outcome was already decided.
The Western Allies helped the Soviets win the war. The outcome of the war was decided in the east, not in Africa or Italy where minor battles were fought.
It was the Battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Operation Bagration, and the battle of Berlin that decided the outcome of the war.
The USSR won the war in Europe, the Western Allies simply helped.
To end this debate, let's compare what I accomplished:
- I proved that Soviets helped Germany to establish itself as a power on round 2
- I proved that the Soviets needed the Western Allies help by:
- I proved that the Allies produced more war equipment than the Soviets on rounds 3 and 4.
|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:||6||0|