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

World War 2 needed to happen

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: 4/2/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 876 times Debate No: 51454
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




As many historians know, World War 2 happened in the 1930-40's, in a period which mankind thought to be one of long peace. Adolf Hitler and his collaborators, however, made sure this would never happen.

My point in summoning a challenger is to prove that World War 2 needed to happen. First round acceptance only, no arguments.

To accept (as I have made this debate "impossible" to accept) comment in comments. Thank you.


I will be so excited to debate you. I cannot wait to see what you arguments are.

Mazel Tov
Debate Round No. 1


Before the Second World War began, Adolf Hitler began annexing countries who had only just received their peace twenty years before. The countries of Austria and Czechoslovakia were annexed in 1938, twenty years after the First World War. Immediately, people all across the world declared peace history: this new Hitler guy was here to stay, and he was wanting war: the Allies agreed, "Let's give him war".

In the Soviet Union (communist Russia) Joseph Stalin, then Russian dictator, received a visit from Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim Avon Ribbentrop, who came to create a peace treaty between the two countries. This would ensure two things for the both of them:

1. The safety and security of Eastern Europe from both point of views.
2. Their abilities to focus on other aspects of the war.

For the latter reason, Adolf Hitler started planning Fall Gelb, the invasion of Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Holland and above all, France.

For Joseph Stalin, there was the invasion of Finland (a further swathe of territory as a "buffer zone" for possible Nazi attack)

Hitler crushed France and its allies, leaving Britain isolated. Stalin also became victorious against Finland, but lost 125,000 soldiers and the Red Army's best generals.

I could go on, but events that followed reinforce my point: World War 2 had to happen. Both for the time itself (to remove Nazism, Fascism and Imperialism from the world) and in a futuristic point of view (creating/possibly destroying Communism, and above all the UN, equality for all people and peace for all countries in Europe, especial Poland, of whom had been occupied in almost all of its history)

There is the point that the UN could've been established, and I would therefore like to refer to the Geneva Convention, of which Germany and Japan refused. This showed their arrogance and clear devotion to further their "causes" via war and empire.

Thank you for accepting my debate, good luck.


first off your welcime.

Now for my argument

On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.

What cause could justify such sacrifices?

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson"s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland"s rescue.

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn"t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative "to stop Hitler" after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet"s, or Fidel Castro"s, was out to conquer the world?

After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.

The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary"s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.

Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?

Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland"s turn, then Russia"s, then France"s, then Britain"s, then the United States.

We would all be speaking German now.
But if Hitler was out to conquer the world " Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia " why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports, and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can"t get out of the Baltic Sea?

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser"s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco"s Spain, Mussolini"s Italy, Miklos Horthy"s Hungary, and Father Jozef Tiso"s Slovakia.

Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly, or neutral neighbors, save France? And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

Winston Churchill was right when he called it "The Unnecessary War" " the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.

Good luck to my opponenet ( Evidence comes from )
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has forced me to extend my arguments, for he has:
A. Not rebutted them
B. Copied the entirety of his "arguments" from the source me and Con used. In other words, he has copied every least word and not really rebutted them.
Thank you for this debate, good luck in the result of this and future debates. Vote Pro!


First off i did not know that the evidence I used was the evidence that the affirmative side used. So sorry on that, second off

I want to attack my opponent by saying WWII did not have to happen, think of all of those innocent lives taken in the war, that is irrelevent. because people died from the decision of one foolish man by the name of Adolf Hitler. But I hope that you vote for Neg.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 2 years ago
Sorry, forgot my source.

I would also like to take this opportunity to tell all contradictors of this comment section to stop contradicting, as it will offer Con suggestions. Thank you.
Posted by Samkatz96 2 years ago
There is no way that WWII needed to happen. Maybe the war itself, proving who the real powers of the world are or redistributing land was necessary. However, the abolishment of 6 million innocent Jewish men, women and children? The Jews were in no way invading Hitler and the German Nazi's, yet they felt the need to destroy all of them. As i stated before, the redistribution of land and power MIGHT have been necessary after the chaos of WWI, however, there is no justification for what Hitler did to the Jewish people and what he did was in no way necessary.
AizenKnaik, you say that "I think if World War 2 didn't actually happen, the world today would most likely be prone to the idea of having conflicts. In a way, World War 2 had sort of like serve as a key that would put an end to countries which were at war at the time". This doesn't make sense. No matter if the war would have happened or not, there was and still will always be conflict. After WWI there was much conflict regarding land and power. However, WWII did not resolve these problems. If anything, they just created more problems by angering many Jews and Americans. There can never be conflict resolution with someone such as Hitler around, attempting to destroy a religion for no absolute reason.
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 2 years ago
Emile1472, you can accept my debate. Thank you for your comments. Enjoy the debate.
Posted by emile1472 2 years ago
I could not disagree more strongly. There is a fatal flaw in your argument.
To say that a Dreadful event HAD to happen, just so that a few other "good" things could happen after is illogical.
With your logic, i could go out and shoot someone tonight, and tomorrow, someone says that needed to happen so that some other insignificant event could happen is madness!
With your argument, any horrendous deed has justification!
To say that the death of 100's of millions of people somehow needed to happen so we can have the UN and a few other minor "wins" is equally mad!
So, did we learn from WW2, yes! Did it NEED to happen? NO!
Posted by AizenSousuke 2 years ago
Nothing "needs" to happen. There are things that we prefer would or would not happen, but nothing is absolutely necessary. I could argue this in the debate, but this would become a philosophical debate, not a historical debate.
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 2 years ago
Now accepting. I will choose challenger. Comment above
Posted by assaf95 2 years ago
It is true that there was no way of stopping ww2 from happening, but the consequences of this war were not all good for humanity. With the end of ww2 the capitalism went to new era where companies and industries are far more important than countries, that mean that money have more value than the life of a human being. That explains why today the cure of so many diseases are discovered but not allowed for use.
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 2 years ago
You've got it all wrong. I mean it needed to happen because of the things mankind learned: what a dictator/tyrant could do to the world; the creation of the UN etc.
Posted by AizenKnaik 2 years ago
And by the way, by putting an end to countries, I do mean putting them altogether in peace.
Posted by AizenKnaik 2 years ago
I think if World War 2 didn't actually happen, the world today would most likely be prone to the idea of having conflicts. In a way, World War 2 had sort of like serve as a key that would put an end to countries which were at war at the time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarized his entire argument. Thus, arguments and conduct go to Pro.