The Instigator
STALIN
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
HitReaper
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The role of the USSR 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...
STALIN
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 828 times Debate No: 40686
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

STALIN

Pro

The Soviets by far were the most important allied country. Let"s face it: World War II was lost, and then won on the Eastern Front. It"s where the vast majority of the German military was concentrated from June 1941 until the end of the war in Europe. Germany knew it had to beat the Soviets or lose the war. Which country broke the back of the German military? That would be the Soviet Union. Eight out of ten German war dead were killed fighting the Soviets on the Eastern Front. The other two out of ten can be divided up between fighting the U.S. and Britain on the Western Front, in Italy, in North Africa and in all the German invasions starting with the invasion of Poland. 80% versus less than 20% for the Western Allies, no contest. Now before anyone says anything about Lend-Lease let me just mention that it had literally no impact on the fighting in the east before the outcome of the war was decided. The defense of Moscow in late 1941 guaranteed that the Germans wouldn't"t win the war in 1941. 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"t win the war. 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.

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"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. [1]

At the Battle of the Bulge, Germany suffered approximately 80,000 casualties. [2]

At Stalingrad, the Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties. [3]

At Kursk, the Germans suffered 250,000-300,000 casualties. [4]

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. [5]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.ushmm.org...
HitReaper

Con

I would argue the opposite -- the role the Western allies put in actually was slightly greater then that of the USSR. Even though the USSR did serve as a very major role it in fact would not have had that opportunity without the western allies. The dissolve of the Nazi German Economy was the major factor that lead to the downfall and ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany.

"From late 1944 on, Allied bombings were destroying German factories and cities at a rapid pace, leading to the final collapse of the German war economy in 1945 (Stunde Null). Food became drastically scarce. Synthetic fuel production dropped by 86% in eight months, explosive output was reduced by 42% and the loss of tank output was 35%.[72] The Allied bombing campaign also tied up valuable manpower, with Albert Speer (Germany's Minister of Armaments) estimating that in the summer of 1944 between 200,000 and 300,000 men were permanently employed in repairing oil installations and placing oil production underground.[73]"

Also all together Nazi Germany had more troops then that of the USSR in 1944 and 1945 (2). If the western allies hadn't been there to distract the USSR would haven't had the ability or the power to get threw the defense of Nazi Germany. The reason that the USSR was able to even push Germany back has to due with failure of re supplies; without that the Nazis would have even won the battle of Stalingrad.

Lets look at what the western side. All together the western allies made up a bigger force then that of the German western campaign (3). The western allies also preformed operation torch which managed to cut of Germany from some precious fuels. With that the bombing also took out fuel production for vehicles -- effectively cutting Germany off and sinking there economy. Also I'd like to argue without the pressure from the west much could of been redirected towards the soviet union; making the Western Allies more important to the defeat.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)
(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)
Debate Round No. 1
STALIN

Pro

"Even though the USSR did serve as a very major role it in fact would not have had that opportunity without the western allies."

Perhaps, however at the same time that the Western Allies were fighting 150,000 German soldiers in Africa, the Soviet Union was fighting 3.5 million on the eastern front. The Soviet Union might have won even without the help of the Western Allies.

"The dissolve of the Nazi German Economy was the major factor that lead to the downfall and ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany."

And that was brought about by the Soviet Union, not the Western Allies.

"From late 1944 on, Allied bombings were destroying German factories and cities at a rapid pace, leading to the final collapse of the German war economy in 1945 (Stunde Null). Food became drastically scarce. Synthetic fuel production dropped by 86% in eight months, explosive output was reduced by 42% and the loss of tank output was 35%.[72] The Allied bombing campaign also tied up valuable manpower, with Albert Speer (Germany's Minister of Armaments) estimating that in the summer of 1944 between 200,000 and 300,000 men were permanently employed in repairing oil installations and placing oil production underground."

Nobody doubts the damage done to Germany by Western Allied bombings. The bombings killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and destroying many factories and cities, one of the greatest crimes of WWII. The bombings however had no impact on the outcome of the war, just like D-Day had no impact on the outcome of the war.

"Also all together Nazi Germany had more troops then that of the USSR in 1944 and 1945."

Completely false, you misread your source. In 1944 and 1945 the Soviets outnumbered the Germans heavily.

"If the western allies hadn't been there to distract the USSR would haven't had the ability or the power to get threw the defense of Nazi Germany."

That is a possibility. However like you said, the Western Allies distracted Germany. They did not defeat Germany.

"The reason that the USSR was able to even push Germany back has to due with failure of re supplies; without that the Nazis would have even won the battle of Stalingrad."

Completely untrue. The only reason Hitler lost in the east was because of Hitler's mistakes.

"All together the western allies made up a bigger force then that of the German western campaign."

I would agree with you there. Overall, the western allies had more men than Germany, as did the Soviet Union. However this does not prove your point.

"The western allies also preformed operation torch which managed to cut of Germany from some precious fuels."

Actually it was the oil in Romania that the Soviets captured which cut Germany off from fuel. There was no oil in Africa. Africa had no economic importance.

Conclusion: Not only does Con use incorrect English, he has many incorrect facts. His strongest argument is that without the Western Allies the Soviets would definitely have lost. Not only is that untrue, the Soviets might still have won without the Western Allies, it is not an argument since without the Soviet Union, the Western Allies would most likely have lot.
HitReaper

Con

HitReaper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
STALIN

Pro

I win. Con FF. Good debate.
HitReaper

Con

HitReaper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
STALIN

Pro

Vote PRO!!!
HitReaper

Con

HitReaper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
STALIN

Pro

vote PRO please!!!
HitReaper

Con

HitReaper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Gs325jcbd 3 years ago
Gs325jcbd
STALINHitReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: i enjoyed both. Stalin made more sense and backed up what he said.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
STALINHitReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job to both debaters. Pro seemed to be able to show how The Soviet Union was more active, before the Western Allies aided them in an intervention.