The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

World War 2 -- 1946 Nazi Germany against the United States, who wins?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 543 times Debate No: 79260
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




The debate is simple.

If Nazi Germany had subdued Britain in 1941, and then went on to defeat the Soviet Union and win, and was left to tend with the USA. Who would win?

Note, in this scenario Japan has surrendered in 1945.

Round 1 - Opening Statement.
Round 2 - 4 - Arguments/Rebuttling
Round 5 - Closing statement/conclusion.

Opening Statement: I believe that if it came to a cold war situation between the USA and Nazi Germany, the USA would prevail, or it would end in stalemate.

I will provide my strong arguments in the arguing rounds of this debate.
Goodluck to whoever accepts it.


I advocate that it would not be possible for the Großdeutsches Reich to defeat the United States of America in a hypothetical Cold War extension of the Second World War.
Contention 1: No Nuclear Bombs
Even if the Großdeutsches Reich manages to defeat the UK and the Soviet Union, there's one keen thing that the Germans are lacking: nuclear weapons. According to PBS (, Germany tried to start a nuclear bomb but were foiled by the following reasons:
1) A number of sabotage operatioins took out production faciilities of heavy water, a slightly different kind of water critical to the production of atomic bombs.
2) Focus was not really made towards atomic bomb production; Germany was more focued towards its lightning war operations. The US on the other hand were entirely focused on the making of the atomic bomb (more on that in just a bit)
3)The rest of the war was just too important
By contrast, the United States was entirely ahead in many ways. According to Forbes (
1) The U.S was entirely fearful that Germany would get to the bombs first, and thus sped up their production facilities.
2) Their major production facilities were far away from World War 2, deep in the deserts of New Mexico.
3) The US had the combined effort of all of the brightest minds in the country.
Moreover, it's a given that the US will make an atomic bomb in this scenario, because the pro stated that in this hypothetical war, Japan surrendered, through only one way possible: nuclear weapons. Therefore, with the US in posession of nuclear weapons, and Germany in control of Europe but with a complete lack of such weapons, it will be a quick and decisive war.
Contention 2: The Soviet Union
While it is true that Germany would be able to prevail over the Soviet Union, the pro never outlined how well Germany would defeat the Soviet Union. Thus, I will answer that question, by basing the answer on what actually happened in the Status Quo. As John Green hints at in his video on World War II (, the Soviet Union's conditions in the wintertime (incidentally when the Germans invaded) were brutal, so brutal only one major empire stands able to conquer Russia during the winter: the Mongols. Even if the Soviet Union gets defeated, the Germans would be so weakened that it would make an easy target for the US.
Contention 3: the US is not alone
While it is true the US would be the only major military power left standing, keep in mind a) Japan and Italy would be both struck down, and b) most of Britian's territories/commonwealth would be left standing, in particular [as John Green focused on in his Open Letter] Canada! Keep in mind, World War 2 was not just the major competitors, it was the supporting countries that gave the competing countries the necessary capital, food, arms to sustain a war. While Germany gets Europe and whatever much of the Soviet Union the winter would give to them, the US gets literally every other Allied power that Germany doesn't eliminate first, plus the US gets its undefeated wartime economy.
Debate Round No. 1


ARe you on my side?

In all 3 of your arguments you basically said the U.S would win.
Why did you accept this debate if you were not going to say that Germany would win?

I will await your actual argument.


The pro questions why I advocated that the US would win the war, but that's intentional. The pro has not given explcitily what side he is going for, thus giving me the chance to choose. Thus I picked the side saying that the US would win the war, via my advocacy.

Aside from this the rest of my case goes UNCONTESTED, thus extend foward.
Debate Round No. 2


i plainly stated in my first argument the following "i believe that if it came to a cold war situation between the USA and Nazi Germany, the USA would prevail, or it would end in stalemate"

Are you even paying attention to this debate?
i said i was on the side that the USA would win.


Scenario 1
Yes, it is clear that pro said in his opening speech he was going to root for team USA, but that was it. If he really wanted to make it clear he was to take the USA position, he should have made his Contentions anyway. Because that is not ture, I still believe that I in the actuality should get that side because:
1) the pro made no opening statements in the 1AC other than "I believe that if it came to a cold war situation between the USA and Nazi Germany, the USA would prevail, or it would end in stalemate."
2) In contrast, it was I who made the opening argument that the USA would win, and it is I who is still continuing with Team USA
3) Who says the pro has the authority to dictate what I run? He never dictated what happens if I went against any boundaries the pro proposed. Even if he was the instigator of this debate, the pro is still a debater, and guess what? I'M A DEBATER TOO. WE'RE THE SAME.
Scenario 2
Should the voters not buy the first scenario, there's still more. Keep in mind, the pro still has Round 4 to make an opening statement for Nazi Germany. If the pro does that, then the debate will go on as if Rounds 2 and 3 never happened, and the pro just made his case like any other debate. A simple side-switch. What's the worst that can happen?
Scenario 3
And should the first 2 be rejected, do keep this in mind: only I, the con, has made any formal opening statements/arguments whatsoever in the round, with full contentions and citations. The only thing the pro goes for is that my args was his args, which I remind you, don't exist. Thus the pro has contested my arguments entirely, and not just once, but twice insofar. That alone is sufficient to vote con.

Debate Round No. 3


Do you know what an opening statement is?

i stated my opening statement, i did not argue because i actually read what i wrote in the first round

Round 1 - Opening Statement.
Round 2 - 4 - Arguments/Rebuttling
Round 5 - Closing statement/conclusion.

Arguing is for rounds 2-4 Not round 1.
Pay attention next time you accept a debate.


I gave the pro the chance to leave this debate behind and start a new one by advoating for Team Germany, but he has forgone this choice, thus I proceed as the debate was:

The pro first questions my knowledge of an "opening statement". I concede that I know what an "opening statement" is, since I am part of my school's debate team, specifically the Policy squad, which I will remind the pro and the voters is a real debate. Moreover, it is the pro who does not know what an "opening statement" is. OPENING ARGUMENTS are presented in Round 1. Arguments" as used in Rounds 2 ~ 4 are rebuttal arguments. Round 5 is final rebuttals, and final remarks about which side has won the debate.

Moreover, as I pointed out in the last speech, the pro ultimately doeesn't have the power to decide what round structure goes, primarily because a) he did not EXPLICITLY SAY THAT NOT DOING WHAT HE WANTED RESULTED IN A LOSS, b) he is STILL A DEBATER, just like me.

Lastly, by my interpretation of "opening statement", as is accepted in real debate, I believe I should have the authority to speak for Team USA since only I made real opening arguments, arguments which remain uncontested. The pro has just made a statement, which isn't supported whatsoever.

Thus, vote con by uncontested arguments
Debate Round No. 4


Actually, i do have the power to determine the round structure being as I CREATED IT.

Con obviously did not read the structure, or pay any attention whatsoever to it.

Vote Pro.


The pro has completely conceded my argument for Team USA in all his speeches, which is more than sufficient to vote con. Even if the pro said he was to advocate for team USA, he doesn't get the power to decide, the fact he never said "not doing these rules means an automatic win for the other team" means he has no way of enforcing the rule, something he dropped. Even if the pro created the debate, that argument won't stand in a real-world debate. In real debate, the pro still presents a claim, with contentions to back up that claim. THIS HE NEVER DID. EVEN IF I DID THE POSITION HE SAID WAS HIS, I REMIND YOU HE NEVER ACTUALLY RAN THE CONTENTIONS IN THE ENTIRE ROUND. Even if he started the debate (which also happens in real debate via. the first debater beginning to speak), he doesn't deserve to have the position. Thus voters, give the position of team USA to me, and vote pro on completely dropped contentions
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Per the rules, the first round was for opening statement, while the second round was for arguments. Con violated the rules by making arguments in round one. Therefore, conduct to Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] A voter is allowed to award solely conduct points based on a rule violation, which apparently occurred in this case. Whatever the result when it comes to arguments, if the voter decides they do not wish to allocate those 3 points, they do not need to do so.
Posted by Dark_Soul 2 years ago
American here:

I truly believe the Soviets did a hell of a lot more to win the war than we did. :) America did NOT win the war.
Posted by TubOLard 2 years ago
I know this is just for fun, but people still give the short end of the stick to the Soviets. They were an integral part of winning the war. They are not just some third string, role playing footnote, as many Americans like to believe. Hitler was foolish to fight on so many fronts.

On a side note, I have been to Russia. They are much more humble than many Americans about these these things. The Panorama is an outstanding museum dedicated to the bravery and courage of those Russian soldiers. They understand the sacrifice and are not braggarts like many Americans.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Per the rules, the first round was for opening statement, while the second round was for arguments. Con violated the rules by making arguments in round one. Therefore, conduct to Pro.