The Instigator
Fairness
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Zbojnik
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Who did most for Allied victory in World War 2?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 99199
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Fairness

Pro

Pro shall take the stance that the United States did most for Allied victory against the Axis in World War 2.

Con shall take the stance that either the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, or China or whichever Allied nation you'd like to argue for did most.
Zbojnik

Con

While I do not want to trivialize the role of the US in WW2 I do not agree that they did the most to bring victory to the Allies. It is hard to actually point at any one state that did the most to bring victory over Axis powers as it was largely a group effort and couldn't be accomplished by any single member. That being said I would say the one nation that sacrificed the most in order to bring victory was the USSR. Let me elaborate.

In the beginning of the WW2 when Nazi aggression against Poland and Czechoslovakia was without any major reaction from their allies France and UK. By not taking their side and not striking hard when German forces were spread thin at their west border, they helped Germany to secure footing in the Europe (although unintentionally) after that their battles were badly organized and as a result German forces managed to cross through Ardens into France completely surprising British and French forces and forcing them to retreat to UK. At this point USSR comes into play as Germans (having defeated France) decided to postpone the invasion to Britain and instead violated the Ribbentrop - Molotov pact and during operation Barbarossa invaded USSR decimating its frontline forces and sending the army into retreat.

During all this time US did nothing to help Allies and many American businesses were actually engaged in trade with nazis (https://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com...) and wanted to avoid going to war in Europe (it is more beneficial to watch from sidelines and then step in with trade deals and loan when both sides are exhausted after war).

During the course of war countless lives of Russian soldiers and citizens perished and country was ripped apart. Soviet forces were often charging enemy without air support, without equipment or weapons and under the leadership of unskilled leaders. Still they managed to hold Moscow, fight for every single house (https://en.wikipedia.org...'s_House) and hold nazi forces occupied so they weren't able to fight on the west. Russian people sacrificed more than any other nation and the number of their lost citizens speaks for itself (https://en.wikipedia.org...). US losses in comparison are a mere fraction of that and they also never had to fight on their own soil.

And while in Pacific Japan was a formidable force in comparison to China of those days they never really stood any chance against US and their victory was clear from the start. (Japanese general whose name I forgot was absolutely against starting the war because he knew there was no chance of winning it). Take a look at it like this, yes many Americans died fighting the Japs, but many MANY more Japs died while fighting those man. Japan of the time had very outdated equipment that simply did not measure up to the competition. I'd suggest watching the series Tales of The Gun: Guns of Japan to see what US soldiers were up against.

To sum it up: Americans joined the war late, they never fought against Nazi Germany when it was at its prime, didn't have a strong enemy in Japan and after the war their country was almost untouched by war (12 000 lost civilians in comparison with 10 milion of the USSR cmmon). In my opinion the view that the US did the most in WW2 is nowadays prevalent mostly because history as it is known is always written by the victor and while the USSR won WW2 they most definitely lost Cold War and we all know who won.
Debate Round No. 1
Fairness

Pro

I would agree that the Soviet Union did sacrifice most once they were invaded by the Axis losing an estimated 30 million people. It was just as much a cause of their own horrendous tactics as well as German brutality. However, I believe that the United States did most for Allied victory, more then the Soviet Union.

In the lead up to World War 2 the Soviet Union and Germany would come to conspire to split Poland and Europe in half. When Britain tried to talk to the Soviet Union, they were told that there was no purpose in any further conversation. The Soviets would create trade deals along with Germany as well as non aggression pacts with the Axis. [1] It would be the German-Soviet invasion of Poland that would start World War 2 in Europe.

The United States on the other hand would come to help the British immensely prior to its official entry into the war. They started the Pan-American Security Zone, would eventually extend it up to Iceland and would escort convoys, inform the British of U-Boat positions whenever they spotted them. [2] Started the Lend Lease to help the British, Free France, China, the Soviet Union and any other ally. [3] While the Soviets was supplying the Axis. The US would provide destroyers to the British in the ships for bases agreement. Free up British troops by taking Iceland. By all accounts, the United States was in a de facto war with the German navy leading up to Germany's declaration of war. [4] The United States would also embargo Japan of vital resources to prevent further conquest of China, French, and other European colonies.

The Soviet Union also joined late as well, for the first quarter of the war, they would be helping the Axis win until they were invaded. Going by official entrance, the Soviet Union only joined less than 6 months before the United States did. If we go by both aspects, the United States would start helping the Allies when the Soviet Union was helping the Axis.

The United States proved a critical component in the war in Europe by helping secure resource rich North Africa and the Middle East. Be there to open two fronts in Europe with the invasion and the defeat of Italy, and the invasion of Normandy. Provide life saving aid to the British and the Soviet Union. As well as fight the Japanese all throughout the Pacific until the Soviets finally joined in that part of the war only 6 days before they would surrender.

The reason its prevalent is cause Britain said without the United States, the Pacific would have been lost. And Stalin and Zhukov said without the United States, Europe would have been lost.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...(1941)#Background
Zbojnik

Con

Stalin's quote mentioned at the end holds a lot of truth, but most certainly it cannot be interpreted the same as "American aid was more important to winning than all of our soldiers who died fighting Germans."

The main contribution on the US that you mention was the fact that they were supplying the rest of Allies with equipment necessary to fight (and win) a war. Which is undoubtedly true, but at the end of the day I still think that it is effort of your soldiers that wins a war. After all you can have warehouses filled with supplies, but that doesn't mean you are going to win.
The person who bought Usain Bolt his running shoes obviously isn't the one who gets the medal, even if Usain couldn't win a race barefoot (probably). Or if a group of soldiers defeated an overwhelming enemy force, I suppose it wouldn't be fair if medals of honor were awarded to people who lend them money to buy their guns? These were just examples of the same logic you use.

Let me also ask you this question: "If USSR surrendered in 1941 would America be willing to send 30 million men to fight Germans knowing they would never return?" I highly doubt that and again stress that supplies don't win a war and supplies don't have nearly the same value as humans lives. You can always make more ships, bandages, etc. ..., it is not that hard with 20th century technology, what is hard is sending your loved ones to battle knowing they will probably never return, yet that is what wins you a war. Russians knew their friends will never return from the battlefield, but Americans at least knew they will be repaid for the supplies they are providing (at least up to a certain extent), so it is not like they were just giving the USSR aid for free (even if it was 'the most unsordid act in the whole of recorded history'), US knew that if the war ended in Allies' favor they would gain A LOT of influence over European countries.

As for the war in Pacific against Japan, I agree with you. Over there US really saved the day for the Chinese and the rest of Japan's enemies by crushing Japan. However I'd rather not get into what ifs in regards to what Japan would do if they had free hands there (if US didn't come to fight them). It is questionable whether they would attack Russians like Hitler hoped or be stalled long enough by Chinese to be too late or held up by deciding to conquer more land in the area. Also since Japan attacked US at Pearl Harbor, not waging war on Japan was out of question for US.

What you are pointing out is that US played a significant role in defeating German and its allies, which it did. But that is not the same as saying they did the most to secure the victory.
Debate Round No. 2
Fairness

Pro

The aid the US supplied and the ones that used it to fight with goes hand in hand. However, if the US didn't send those supplies the Soviets lose in the eastern front. Communism and the Slavic people they intended to exterminate for the Germanic people would be gone. The Germans were waging a war of extermination against the Soviet Union. They would have fought on to the last man because they had too. Those supplies made it possible for them to achieve victory. Without them, they would have lost. Then the western Allies would have had to use atomic bombs on Europe.

It was American aid that made it possible to win the war of attrition. The US supplied 25% of British munitions, American made tanks became the common tank among the western allies and China. [1]The US sent the Soviets vast numbers of trucks which Zhukov, general of the army that took Berlin, said without they could not have been able to tow their artillery no where. Sent them vast amounts of gun powder and explosives which he said without which they couldn't have formed their reserves and continued the war. Sent them vast amount of steel which Zhukov said without which they couldn't have churned out the amount of tanks they needed. [2] Sent them 30% of the total aircraft that the Soviets had. 7% of their total production of tanks. Sent them large quantities of food and many other raw materials and resources. It is said that the Persian Corridor alone supplied up to 60 divisions. For comparison, the US used 22 million tons in Europe, they sent the Soviets 17.5 million tons. [3] Nikita Khrushchev would say, "I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were discussing freely among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so." [5]

The British position regarding the Pacific was this. "Without the assistance of France we should not have sufficient forces to meet the combined German and Italian navies in European waters and the Japanese fleet in the Far East. In the circumstances envisaged, it is most improbable that we could send adequate reinforcements to the Far East. We should therefore have to rely on the United States of America to safeguard our interests there."

If the Soviets fell in 1942, the British Empire would have still fought on. The United States would have still been attacked. All the supplies that went to the USSR would have been shipped off to other fronts to make an even bigger impact in those fronts. Japan would have still been defeated. The Soviets had 0 affect on Japanese defeat. The Germans would also lose. The Battle of the Atlantic would have still gone to the Allies. The British home islands would have never been able to get invaded and the supplies coming from North America would have insured British continuation in the war.

They would've overstretched themselves trying to take all of North Africa and the Middle East and beyond while trying to keep hold of all the nations under their control in all of Europe. The Allies would have still gained air supremacy and wreaked havoc on German war potential. Finally, Germany would gotten a taste of the atom bomb which Emperor Hirohito said "Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects; or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers." [6]

To answer your question, I do think that the United States would have been willing to take much higher losses if required. However, the western allies employed a more tactical and strategic depths to inflict loss while taking the least possible. Which is why the US was able to inflict serious loss to the Japanese which was exactly like the Soviets, their never give up attitude, while receiving little loss.

I see the Germans losing as the Japanese did. A slow drawn out war of attrition which is something that they always tried to avoid. In the end, they would have been overextended, militarily, and economically exhausted as Allied forces from all over the world would come raining down on them with increasingly stronger attacks and in larger numbers until they gave up.

However, in conclusion, I believe that the United States did most for allied victory for having supplied all the warring nations with all their needs in order to win on the fronts. Making efforts pre entry to help the Allies. Finally, having direct impacts in nearly all fronts of the war militarily. The Battle of the Atlantic, campaigns in Africa, towards Italy's defeat in 1943. Proceeding to create the 3rd front in Europe in France. flattening German cities with bomber fleets. All while being in the lead in the Pacific leading to all 3 of the major Axis powers, Italy, Germany, and Japan to surrender. Whereas, the Soviets aided the Axis economically and militarily, conspired to split Europe in half in the beginning, having to accept aid instead of give it, and refusing to fight Japan until the very end.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://rbth.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Zbojnik

Con

Yet again our argument reached a point when one side claims that US supplied the rest of Allies with equipment (which it did) and the other that Russian men willing to die had to operate and use the said equipment (which they did) to win. I could again try to make a point that equipment itself doesn't win a war, but I'd rather not go that way as I fear that both sides would end up repeating their arguments over and over and both sides would be correct.

In response to what was mentioned about Stalin's opinion. It was never my intention to prove that USSR could have won the war on its own and neither it is the topic of this debate. While it may be true that they wouldn't have beaten Germany without the aid provided to them, that does not mean they didn't do the most of the actual work necessary.

As for the potential use of atomic weapons against Third Reich that was mentioned as a last resort in case Germany needed to be stopped, I believe that it wouldn't have been a viable option if Germany was allowed to secure a foothold in Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Not only were these weapons only available in 1945 (Germany could have conquered significant parts of UK by that time), but also I find the prospect of using them against Germany unfeasible in practice. Where would such a weapon be deployed? On French soil? On British soil? On soil of any of the occupied countries? No matter where it was deployed significant amount of casualties would be civilians of the said countries. I can imagine it would be unacceptable for them and in case such act happened, it would only serve to fuel Nazi propaganda against Allies. There would have been no easy way of using it on German soil either if they were the ones controlling the sky and it is important to remember that Third Reich would be more than willing to take its revenge on civilians living in the conquered territories (this way they could use these people as hostages). Plus there is always a chance that if Reich had more time and resources they would have been able to acquire their own nuclear bomb(s). But a significant time and resources were consumed on the East fighting USSR.

On that note British isles would have been invaded. In case Russia wasn't in any way involved in war it is hard to imagine how Germany would wage war on British after defeating France without invading (or attempting to invade) them. During The Battle of Britain one of the decisive factors was the German change of tactics from bombing RAF airports to bombing London (https://en.wikipedia.org...) which proved to be a fatal mistake as it provided RAF with enough time to recover. While I agree that at this point this is a speculation (as are many situations that have been mentioned in this debate by both sides), I think that if Germany had more airplanes or time they could have accomplished both objectives, beat the RAF and thus be able to proceed with the Operation Sea Lion or at least force UK to start peace negotiations. If that was the case there would be no reason for the US to join the war it never wanted to be a part of anyway.

USSR refusing to fight Japan is not that surprising considering the fact that they desperately needed all their soldiers at Moscow and Eastern front at the time. Later when they were in a better position USA has already achieved significant victories in the region. But near the end of the war USSR still helped in Manchuria (https://en.wikipedia.org...).

Although before it was attacked USSR supplied Nazi Germany, in the end they also played a crucial role in defeating them. One could say that fate punished them for helping people who were supposed to be there number one enemy. At the time however they had little reason to care about fates of other European nations since they were very much opposed to the idea of 'communism' (it wasn't actually communism) that USSR was trying to spread:
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Under such circumstances I can imagine that Stalin hoped that Germany would wage war on the West weakening both sides and thus improving the position of USSR.

I believe, after rereading the debate, that there is no way of reaching a definitive conclusion about which nation did more for the war effort. The answer depends on just what is considered the most important part of war machinery and there is also no easy answer to that. The entire question boils down to the fact that USSR sacrificed many many soldiers to beat the Germans and that US supplied it, along with its other allies, with significant portion of supplies necessary to do that. One couldn't work without the other and its up to he individual consideration. However I still stand behind what I initially claimed, which is that equipment and supplies will never be worth quite as much as human sacrifice.
Debate Round No. 3
Fairness

Pro

Had the Soviets not been attacked or been defeated, the vast number of equipment that the US sent to them would have been sent elsewhere, to the many campaigns and fronts not associated with the Soviet Union's fight in the east nor places where Soviet troops laid foot on.

Between the United States and the British Empire, there was 31 million troops scattered around the world. The Americans mastered logistics and with their near limitless supply of just about everything. Germany, as well as the others, were doomed for the war of attrition that followed. The Soviets paid a big price for victory. However, the Allies had the same vast pool of manpower backed with the resources to equip them. Fighting would have continued on until Germany ran out of all the essential supplies that they needed in order to stop the Allies. Supplies without men won't win wars, true, men without supplies won't either. The thing is, The US had both, the Soviets did not.

How much faster would fighting end in the other areas of fighting had the 1000s of tanks, aircraft, logistic vehicles, the steel that made it possible for the Soviets to make the tanks ect been sent and used in other fronts? I'd say it would make an incredible difference. One campaign would be better equipped then they were which would lead to a faster victory and lead to the next victory and then the next and so on.

The combined number of aircraft between the British-US and the German is as follows.

Allies Germany

Fighters 137,786 57,653
Attack 33,811 8,991
Bombers 135,158 28,577
Recon 7,014 5,025
Transport 36,485 8,396
Training 103,256 14,311

The US-UK fleets were bigger than all of the Axis nations combined with a total of over 400,000. In fact, the United States alone had more then all of the Axis members. [1] There is no doubt that the Allies would gain total supremacy as they did. By the time of the invasion of France, Eisenhower told the invaders that if they saw any fighters over you, they'd be ours. The Germans pulled back its air force to defend against the massive Allied fleets to no effect cause they were losing theirs at unsustainable levels. The commander of the 2nd Panzer Division came to say this, "They have complete mastery of the air. They bomb and strafe every movement, even single vehicles and individuals. They reconnoiter our area constantly and direct their artillery fire. The feeling of helplessness against enemy aircraft has a paralyzing effect, and during the bombing barrage the effect on inexperienced troops is literally 'soul-shattering.' [2] By 1945 the Allies had total air supremacy, immobilizing the German military, destroyed their oil supplies, logistics system, and communications. [3]

German atomic bomb research was neither a priority or one managed well at all. It would have taken years longer and a reshuffle in the way they were working towards it in order to achieve the bomb. By the time that could have been done, the Allies would have total air supremacy over Germany and would proceed to lay it to waste with nuclear weapons until they surrendered.

There would have been no invasion of the British Isles either. Even the German High Command thought it infeasible needing to have naval and air superiority in which they had neither. [4]

Finally, This is not a debate about who did most to defeat Germany, and that argument could be made that the Allies played an equally critical role in that. This is a debate as to who did most for Allied victory, and Germany was not the only Axis member. There was quite a few.

With that said I will end my round with a short summery of what happened.

The US was directly or indirectly helping in every theater of World War 2. They began helping at a time the Soviets were not. When they finally got in the fight, they made the United States and their Pacific allies wait until the last week of World War 2 before fighting Japan which was already beaten. Furthermore, Stalin and General Zhukov would say that without the United States' help in the fight against the European Axis members, Europe would have been lost. On the flip side, the British essentially said without the United States, the Pacific would have been lost. So in conclusion to this, it should be accepted that the United States did most for Allied victory against the Axis.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Zbojnik

Con

USA had resources, equipment and soldiers true, but they were aware that it would be much more beneficial to them to support USSR instead of leaving them on their own.
Did Lend Lease help USSR, surely yes, it most likely saved lives of many of their soldiers. Would USSR lose/give up without that aid? That is highly unlikely, considering how much they have already endured. A lot of the early losses in USSR suffered in the early months of war were due to Stalin's purges in the ranks of commanding officers, later in war however it was recognized that competence was more important than upholding soviet political values. As a result Soviet army was getting better commanders and more time allowed them to draft more soldiers[1] (the USSR population was around 160 million while Geman only 79 million prior to war)[2][3]

When it comes to defending their homeland it could be said that USSR of the time was very much fatalistic. Even if Germany was able to seize large portions of the country it is questionable whether they would be actually able to hold them as partisans would surely try to undermine their control wherever they could. Also it is important to remember that Germany was fighting a war on multiple fronts and having 60-80 percent of their troops on the East would surely not make their situation any easier there.

You pointed out the combined force of the US and UK, but this force, while great, was between the years 1941-1945 directed at only about 1.6 million soldiers in the are while the bulk of the Axis army was on the East (Germany in total had 16 million men serving at the beginning of war). I think it is fair to say that while Germany was overwhelmed on Eastern and Western front, its presence on the East was stronger as can be evidenced by the fact that many of the most bloody battles took place there such as Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Moscow, Narva offensive, Battle of Kharkov, Battle of Kursk,... . [4]

The reason why I hasn't mentioned other Axis nations much, such as Japan or Italy, is because on their own they wouldn't pose any significant threat to Allies. It is apparent from the source you provided [5], that their military production and capability was nowhere near that of USSR, USA or UK. If USSR managed to deal with Germans in Europe they could have simply turned East and went to fight Japan which would not be able to win such a war. Same could be also said for UK, that wasn't able to effectively fight Japan in Pacific because it needed all of its forces at home. After the war in Europe they could have as well headed there to take back their territories from Japan. Japan was a big military force when compared to its neighboring countries, but not really when compared to any of the Allies.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org...(1937)#Census
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...(1%E2%80%934_March_1944)
https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]https://en.wikipedia.org...

P.S.: If it was possible I'd appreciate if you could wait a day or slightly longer before posting your reply as I will most likely be without Internet connection until Monday and I do want to be able to participate in the final round.
Debate Round No. 4
Fairness

Pro

I will try to keep this last round of mine short. Simple comparisons. Who did most for Allied victory? The answer is clearly the United States. Why?

The United States began helping the Allies win during a time when the Soviets were helping the Axis. How?

The United States provided the British with destroyers, escorted conveys, revealed Axis positions to the British, attacked the Axis on occasion, occupied territory to protect against the Axis, extended the Pan-American Security Zone, and introduced Lend Lease. Which would see that American tanks would make up the bulk of western allied including Chinese armies main tank. Whereas, the Soviets signed non aggression pacts with the Axis, created trade deals with them, invaded Poland with them, divided Europe between them, ignored their allies in the Pacific until 1 week prior to the last remaining Axis member surrendered. So in economic terms, the United States clearly takes it.

The Soviet Union's role in the war was primarily on one front of one theater, very minor role in the Pacific and the Mediterranean and Middle East theaters. The United States' role in the war was a major one in all theaters of the war. Japanese emperor would site America's atomic bombs as the reason for their surrender. The United States would provide the supplies that was sited as key for Soviet victory in the Eastern Front in Europe. While The United States would eventually provide the British 25% of munitions, knock the German war economy down by 25%, drop more bombs on Germany and take out more aircraft than the British did. Take part in the two other fronts in Europe in Italy and through France. The United States would provide the needed resources and men to see the Axis pushed out Africa and the fall of the Italian Empire. The United States would be the direct reason for total victory in all fronts. Without the men and resources from the United States, as stated by those highest up, they would have lost rather that be by surrendering or fighting to the last man.

Clearly economically, militarily also, the United States fought majorly in all theaters of World War 2. The Soviet Union just 1. The brutality of the fighting in the Eastern Front in Europe and the fighting in the Pacific was equally brutal. Japan was the most fanatical power never wanting to surrender. Switch the cold with oppressive heat and you have the Eastern Front in the Pacific.

The what ifs regarding the fall of the Soviet Union is a moot argument best for another debate. This is about who did most in what really happened. Since the US supplied the things that the Soviets needed to win, supplied the equipment and food and such that everyone needed to win, and was a major party in all theaters of the war militarily. It is obvious that the United States did most for allied victory.
Zbojnik

Con

Likewise I will try to keep my final round brief and to the point.

During the course of the World War 2, armies of the USSR ever since being first involved in fight against Germany fought against majority of its ground forces, had more personnel involved in war effort than USA and UK combined, fought in most of the largest and bloodiest battles of the war even despite the fact that its soldiers often had to go into battle without reliable equipment. Even though it fought majority of its battles on the Eastern Front, it is important to stress out that it was also the front with the largest concentration of very well armed enemy forces.

On the other hand US in the Pacific often fought against highly fanatic, but still poorly equipped Japanese soldiers who clearly never had any actual means of defeating its adversary who outnumbered and outproduced them in everything. Thus many of the battles that took place in the region were, while undoubtedly brutal, rather one sided.

USSR on the Eastern front provided the most valuable resource that cannot be expressed in monetary value, its people. While they received a portion of their supplies from USA, they were provided to them so that they could continue their fight and USA didn't have to send its own to die in battle against Germans on the Eastern front. In this regard I believe it was at the very least a fair trade and not USA saving the day.

I would like to thank Fairness for initiating the debate and writing down his arguments in a very professional manner.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Fairness 12 months ago
Fairness
Both.
Posted by dr.jimmythefish 12 months ago
dr.jimmythefish
Economy or militarily or both?
Posted by John_C_1812 12 months ago
John_C_1812
I"m not going to waste your time with this answer because it kind of mess up your theme of the debate. And it is a great theme.

The religious Nation did the most for Allied Victory against the axis after the War.
It is symbolized by the Children lost during, finalized by the Children laid to rest after, and the ground left un-walked between.
Posted by Fairness 12 months ago
Fairness
Naw bruh, Germany wasn't an Allied power. Hahaha
Posted by Capitalistslave 12 months ago
Capitalistslave
Could I argue that Germany did the most for Allied victory in World War 2? Honestly, I think it was his mistakes that lead to allied victory over all.
Posted by John135086 12 months ago
John135086
obviously hitler...duh
No votes have been placed for this debate.