Without the Eastern Front, Germany would have won the 2nd World War
Debate Rounds (4)
While the information my opponent provided in this round does show that the Soviet Union contributed significantly to tying down German troops in the east, it does not show that had all these troops been fighting the Western Allies Germany would have won. I have a few arguments of my own to make. In order to see that whether Germany could have been defeated without the Soviet Union, one must look at two simple but very important things - manpower and production.
Both are important to win a war and lacking one decreases the others effectiveness. First, we can look at the population of different countries. As of 1939, Germany had a population of 70 million and Italy, 45 million. The United States on the other hand had a population of 130 million and the British islands had a population of 50 million. Canada had a population of 11 million and Australia had 8 million people. India, also a part of the British Commonwealth, had 378 million people. These statistics show that the allies could easily outnumber the axis powers in Europe because they had a larger manpower. (1)
In addition to this, the United States alone produced almost 50% of total weapons and supplies during WWII. (2) Throughout WWII, America produced more than Germany and the Soviet Union combined and its supplies enabled Britain to remain in the war.
In short, the allied ability to have superior manpower and superior production shows that they would be able to win a long war against Nazi Germany and defeat them in the end. The Soviet Union being there definitely sped things up by perhaps years. However it is impossible to speculate; I simply provided a few facts of my own that I believe support my case. On to Pro.
For a start, Pro failed to address my argument about manpower and hopefully will in the next round.
Pro responded to my argument about superior allied production by saying that "most tanks and weapons malfunctioned during use" and that "the allies were notorious for low quality production standards, and their tactics were quantity over quality."
Perhaps the Western Allies did have cases where their weapons malfunctioned, however this was far from a majority and far from what happened on the eastern front during the early months of the war when hundreds of Soviet tanks simply ran out of fuel and had to be abandoned or destroyed to prevent them from falling into the hands of the Germans. The M4 Sherman was the most mass produced tank of WWII and while it was far from the equivalent of the German Panzer IV, Panther V, and Tiger tanks, they were very effective in large numbers. In addition to this, they were quick and easy to make and could be mass produced much easier than the German tanks could. What Pro is saying about the western allies having low quality production standards is completely false. The Americans and British produced superior aircraft, particularly bombers and in the end managed to destroy the German air force in the skies above Germany. In addition to this, Britain and America had total naval superiority in Europe. Germany didn't even have aircraft careers.
What Pro says about the Germans being tied down on the eastern front fighting the Russians enabling the Western Allies to be successful may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant in a debate where he needs to prove that without the eastern front, Germany would have won the Second World War. So far, my arguments about whether or not the allies could have defeated Germany in the end are more convincing since they focus on superior allied production and manpower which are two things needed to fight a war successfully. Pro is simply making the wrong arguments and is not looking at the big picture. The Western Allies greatly outproduced and heavily outnumbered the Germans and therefore would have defeated Germany in the end.
Lets take a look at Africa where in the end, allied manpower was able to overwhelm Rommel. In Africa, the British (excluding American casualties) suffered 220,000 casualties while total Axis losses including hundreds of thousands of prisoners came to 620,000. (1) The Axis lost in Africa in the long term because of overall superior allied manpower (such as at El Alamein (2)) and superior allied production which in the end proved key to driving the axis forces from Africa.
In addition to this, by 1944 the allies were able to deploy millions of troops which is shown in France. (3)
In the long term, the Western Allies outproduced and outnumbered the Germans and for these reasons would have won in the end. While Pro does show how the eastern front tied down millions of German troops, he does not dispute my arguments about superior British and American manpower and production overwhelming the Germans sooner or later. My position is much stronger and the facts that I have given in this round and in earlier rounds show that sooner or later, the Axis would have been overwhelmed whether or not the Germans ever invaded the USSR.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.