The Instigator
SlovakiaKentros
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
STALINist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Without the Eastern Front, Germany would have won the 2nd World War

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: 2/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 664 times Debate No: 70710
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

SlovakiaKentros

Pro

(This is not an opening argument, just accept the debate with the next round, and then there will be 3 rounds to debate with.) Any style of debating, anyone can accept, and good luck.
STALINist

Con

While the eastern front was the most important front in WW2 and the overwhelming majority of German casualties were inflicted by the Red Army, I will argue that it is entirely possible the British Commonwealth and the United States would have eventually defeated the German Reich without Germany ever invading the Soviet Union.
Debate Round No. 1
SlovakiaKentros

Pro

The Germans had to send 3,933,000 troops into the Eastern Front at it's peak in 1943[1], out of their 6 million that were in the total collected army, tanks and the Luftwaffle. That's half of their army. More planes attack England would have overwhelmed the otherwise under trained English fighters. "The German objective was to gain air superiority over the Royal Air Force (RAF)"[2]. That means that more Luftwaffle fighters and bombers would have kept England at bay, and would have kept the soldiers at the homeland to defend it. No resistance on the beaches is an open chance for a German land invasion. More troops would have made for a better invasion, with more strength behind it. The navy would be less occupied on the Black Sea and more on the Atlantic ocean, to bomb the supply ships coming to England.
http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]
STALINist

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

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.

Sources:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.section117.com...
Debate Round No. 2
SlovakiaKentros

Pro

The production argument is the most flawed argument. The allies were notorious for low quality production standards, and their tactics were quantity over quality.[1] As a result, most tanks and weapons that they produced malfunctioned during use. The Germans were holding them off just fine on their own in the French and British territory, and the only reason that D-Day happened, which is the "Turning point in the war" for most people, was because " Thus far in the war, eighty percent of German military casualties had occurred at the hands of Russian soldiers." [2], and they were being pressured to do so. Most of the defense was made up of German lower ranks, because the higher ranks were being sent to the Eastern Front to fight the Russian's.
STALINist

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
SlovakiaKentros

Pro

Sources? No? Okay. Fair to say because i didn't either, but they were highly assumptious. Manpower wasn't addressed because I was transfixed on disproving your production, which we'll get to later. Manpower was a issue, as seen in the dieppe beach invasion of 1942, In which 907 Canadian troops were killed, 586 wounded, 1,496 captured[1]. A relatively small failure in comparison to the overall death toll of the war, yes, but It made for a delay in beach invasions in the future because of the though of the next one being like the Dieppe beach invasion, which in all proved that the allied forces were inept. Operation Market Garden, another proof of allied failure on the troops behalf. Over 17,200 soldiers died in a allied failure. These were partly manpower, partly a commanding problem. The allied commanders and operation directors ordered these failed attacks on the beaches. I talked about the Russian's because without the Russian's holding the allied forces in the east, the Germans wouldn't have to send their high ranked soldiers in to hold them off, proving how valuable the eastern front is.

http://en.wikipedia.org...[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]
STALINist

Con

While my opponent does provide two minor examples in which allied manpower proved to be lacking, he still fails to look at the bigger picture. In a war that involved millions of troops, several thousand dead there and several thousand captured somewhere else is insignificant.

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.

Sources:

(1) http://www.pbs.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by STALINist 1 year ago
STALINist
I meant to say that the M4 Sherman was the second most massed produced tank of WWII (after the T-34). Sorry about that.
Posted by LouisMuston123 2 years ago
LouisMuston123
The combined efforts of all the Allied forces would be more likely to overwhelm the German war machine
Posted by LouisMuston123 2 years ago
LouisMuston123
Very interesting debate going on here
Posted by CX-Com 2 years ago
CX-Com
Whoops! MY bad! I meant the Walther P38. I got the two mixed up.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I am pretty sure the 1911 > Luger, but ok
Posted by CX-Com 2 years ago
CX-Com
I totally agree with this. Germany was further ahead of everyone in military technology (even though the V2 rockets probably caused more German casualties than the Allies). US troops would drop their own pistols and take Lugers off of dead German troops. The reason Germany lost in Russia was because of Russia's tactic of Scorched Earth http://en.wikipedia.org...
No votes have been placed for this debate.