The Instigator
biggest_pro_going
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jingle_Bombs
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

the soviet union was BY FAR the strongest allied country in ww2

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: 2/8/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 883 times Debate No: 69661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

biggest_pro_going

Pro

In world war 2 a lot of people say (especially Americans) say with confidence that the USA was the strongest allied country in ww2 and some people even say it was the British!

I made this debate to challenge anyone who thinks other wise and see if it is even possible to beat me in this debate? Not because i am good but just because the topic i am debating has such an obvious right answer- The Soviet union. I see no way some won can even claim that the USA is stronger except due to them being a patriot(not a valid reason).

First lets look at contribution: the USSR defiantly contributed the most to winning because 9/10 Germans died on the Russian front and over 70% of the German war equipment was also destroyed there. Stalin grad the most essential battle of the war also happened was won by the Russian, The battle of Berlin was won by the Russians and the Russians on there own beat: Bulgaria, Romania, Hungry and FINLAND!

If that is not enough- the soviets had the biggest tank force, the biggest army, the MOST planes, and even a strong navy. Not to mention the very high moral/harsh training amongst the troops!!!!!

Given all this i don't see how anybody can argue validly otherwise?

Sources:
https://answers.yahoo.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Jingle_Bombs

Con

Okay Comrade, I hope you came to play ball because the yanks have just arrived.

In world war 2 a lot of people say (especially Americans) say with confidence that the USA was the strongest allied country in ww2

From 1941 to 1945 - the USA single handedly outproduced all other countries in the world in total tonnage and armaments, including all axis countries in the world combined. According to post wartime production figures; the USA outproduced Germany by nearly three times in total armaments, and Japan by almost ten times (1). The USA was also the world's largest producer of oil on the eve of World War II, and was responsible for nearly two-thirds of the world's total oil production (2). At peak wartime production (1943-44) the US war economy was producing a new B-24 Liberator at the rate of 1 every 63 minutes, and could build a huge new Liberty class freighter in just 14 days (3). These statistics alone should prove that the USA was clearly the most powerful nation in the world during World War II. In fact, the USA was so tremendously powerful, that by 1944, it could plan, coordinate, and launch two simultaneous amphibious landing invasions on opposite sides of the world (DDay and Saipan), operations that required nearly a year of preparation and extensive training; thousands of troops, marines, sailors, ships, airplanes; and countless numbers of supplies and available food and oil resources. With the exception of the atomic bomb blasts then that rocked Hiroshima and Nagasaki (also done by USA), the Normandy invasion is considered by many historians as the greatest demonstration of power projection ever seen in world history (4). Period.

I made this debate to challenge anyone who thinks other wise and see if it is even possible to beat me in this debate?

By 1945 the USA had successfully tested and detonated three atomic bombs. The USSR would not have their first atomic bomb till 1949. This fact alone could end this debate.

Not because i am good but just because the topic i am debating has such an obvious right answer- The Soviet union.

What you have done (like so many Russophiles) is confused sacrifice for contribution. The USSR sacrificed the most number of lives in order to win World War II, its a given, but these sacrifices might not have meant anything had it not have been for Lend-Lease (US supplies to the Soviet Union) and the opening of a vital second front against Germany in France & Italy, which prevented the USSR from ultimately being overwhelmed and defeated by the Germans.

I see no way some won can even claim that the USA is stronger except due to them being a patriot(not a valid reason).

USA > USSR for:

-Total Available Manpower, Capital, and War Materials
-Better Weaponry & Technology (including Atomic Bombs)
-Superior Wartime Economy & Factory Production Methods
-Superior Navy and Air Force
-Better Wartime Institutions and Overall Leadership

the USSR defiantly contributed the most to winning because 9/10 Germans died on the Russian front and over 70% of the German war equipment was also destroyed there.

And yet alls you can do is account for 1/3 of the war at maximum, seen how the Russian military was (by and large) absent in campaigns against Italy and Japan. Also curiously absent from anything meaningful was the Russian Navy in the crucial wars in the Pacific and the Atlantic.

Stalin grad the most essential battle of the war also happened was won by the Russian,

Because some idiot with a funny little mustache and a huge ego problem thought he would look more masculine to his generals and the eyes of the world if he stayed, fought, and died at indefensible positions (Thermopylae style) rather than fall back just for a little bit to regroup & rearm his forces. Point being, the German defeat at Stalingrad was more do to poor leadership desicions by the German Fuhrer than anything brilliant or particularly noteworthy by the Russian military.

The battle of Berlin was won by the Russians and the Russians on there own beat:

I actually recall something from the Yalta agreements where Churchill and Roosevelt agreed to let Stalin take Berlin. We can hardly attribute the capture of Berlin then to anything then that the other allies couldn't do - save wanting to waste huge number of lives in foolish human wave charges against the Nazi capital .

the MOST planes, and even a strong navy.

Please. The US produced twice the number of aircraft as the Soviets did (5), and AFAIK the Russian Navy (for how great and unimpressive it was) had ZERO aircraft carriers.

Given all this I don't see how anybody can argue validly otherwise?

Atomic bombs.

/Debate

1)https://books.google.com...
2)https://www.e-education.psu.edu...
3)http://www.pbs.org...
4)http://www.dday.org...
5)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
biggest_pro_going

Pro

Ok a lot of this stuff is ether your opinion (Russia had worse tech than the Americans) or info that does not show how strong their army was and u instead that the US made a lot of oil. In World WAR 2 i don't know maybe the ARMY STRENGTH is more important than the economic or oil? -WAR, key word.

I will prove all your points wrong 1 by 1

"From 1941 to 1945 - the USA single handedly outproduced all other countries in the world"- but we are not talking about countries production rates we are talking about there STRENGTH and since its a war there ARMY STRENGTH.

"it could plan, coordinate, and launch two simultaneous amphibious landing invasions on opposite sides of the world"- well PLEASE, the battle of Saipan was hardly a master plan! the place was about 10 TIMES SMALLER THAN NEW YORK hardly a great job. Also some Japanese solders were using bamboo spears so the defense and there for strength needed to take it could not have been the best.

"By 1945 the USA had successfully tested and detonated three atomic bombs. The USSR would not have their first atomic bomb till 1949. This fact alone could end this debate."- SO what 3 nukes what a super power. i think maybe 50,000 tanks could pay up for 3 nukes. Also they used 2 nukes on an all ready destroyed country on the brink of surrender. Why did they use them? 1 REASON the US was scared by the fact the soviets had declared war on japan and they were FAR more efficient. They swept threw Manchuria the same time it took all mighty MURICA to take like 2 tiny Japanese islands. Even the US new that the USSR could have easily took japan ,a lot quicker than the US.

"Russophiles"- i know this debating site is meant for intelligent people and a lot of big language is used but there is no need.

"sacrifice for contribution."- no i don't think i did. May i remind you 9/10 Germans died were? the RUSSIAN front. and what the noob did the Americans do? beat a nation that has been at war for 7 years? with the help of china,Australia and a lot other countries.

"US supplies to the Soviet Union"- they sent them like 0.1% of porridge for like 1 year. May i remind you the reason why Russia needed supplies was because they were FIGHTING A WAR! not just attacking a country across an ocean!

"opening of a vital second front against Germany"- VITAL! all D-day was for was so the US could say "by the way we helped a lot in Europe". but truthfully only 30% of the destroyed German army was in the west. All d day done was what? Maybe helped end the war a couple of weeks earlier.

"which prevented the USSR from ultimately being overwhelmed and defeated by the Germans. "- The soviets had been SUCCESSFULLY pushing the Germans back for over a year and liberated several countries. SO HOW would the small amount of German fores left in Italy and France be able to overwhelm the Russians and if they could why did they not they they had more than a year to do so?

"Total Available Manpower"-means nothing of cores America had more available it has more people in it. but today INDIA is not stronger than the US. and it has more available man power.

"Better Weaponry & Technology "- completely bi est opinion.

"Superior Wartime Economy "- its a war i think your ARMY is more important.

"Superior Navy and Air Force"- This is ww2 and a WW2 plane is NOT the best and i think tanks/men are a lot more important. Also the Russians won Stalingrad with German air superiority. This is not 1870 the navy doesn't matter
and Russia did not need a navy because it is surrounded by ice.

" Overall Leadership" Well of topic, opinion and Stalin may have been evil but new how to win a war- (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Also harry Trooman did drop 2 nukes killing 250,000 Innocent civilians with 2 bombs with offensive names.- GREAT LEADER SHIP. Does this not make u evil?

"seen how the Russian military was (by and large) absent in campaigns against Italy and Japan."- as i have said before Russia had been invaded by a very powerful country so unlike the US it couldn't just choose what wars it would look best in.
Also Germany was about 2 TIMES stronger than Japan and Italy combined. If we are listing axis members who the US helped destroy. the USSR single handedly beat Hungry, Bulgaria, Romania and Finland witch were probably as strong as Italy combined. Italy took Albania and Ethiopia, and Japan took a lot of un maned colonies and the Philopens. Germany took Poland, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Belgium, Luxemburg, Holland, most of north Africa and France.

"Also curiously absent from anything meaningful was the Russian Navy in the crucial wars in the Pacific and the Atlantic"- i thought the Russian navy was small and terrible? Since Russia was being invaded by Germany it couldn't car about sinking some U boats in the Atlantic or bombing some Japanese islands.

"poor leadership desicions by the German Fuhrer than anything brilliant or particularly noteworthy by the Russian military."
- a i see the Germans just had a little mistake and whoops!lost 1millon men and lost the war. What was the Russians pushing Germany back to Berlin for 3 years just some bad tactics? I see you don't know what happened in Stalingrad.
The Russian encircled the city witch led to 1 million Germans being killed.

"agreed to let Stalin take Berlin"- well the soviets surrounded the city so Rosavlet didn't have much "agreeing" to do. Looking at what the soviets did they deserved to commit the final blow.

" had ZERO aircraft carriers."- why would Russia have air craft carriers it had air bases? The Americans could only produce all these aircraft carriers because they were in no threat for the entire war.

"Atomic bombs."- WITTY

conclusion: i proved 90% of your facts wrong so i think that makes me the winner.

Russian wins at: Tanks, army size, moral, Armored vehicles, missile launchers and a much bigger army.
America wins at: air force.....
note- the UK/Germany had a better air force than the US and navies don't count (not the 1800s) navy's became useless after ww1.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
Jingle_Bombs

Con

but we are not talking about countries production rates we are talking about there STRENGTH and since its a war there ARMY STRENGTH... WAR, key word.

Yes. Its interesting that you've made a debate on the merits of gross national power (your title for instance asks us to determine the "strongest country of WWII") but now you've cleverly managed to shift the goal posts by most ingeniously inserting the word "army" before "strength" and then haughtily proclaiming to your opponent that real national strength in World War II was only about the size of one's ground forces - thereby fulfilling your BOP and winning this debate... As if economic, political, and diplomatic might were not also decisive factors from 1939-1945.

Remember, World War II was a TOTAL war. Key word: TOTAL.

we are talking about there STRENGTH and since its a war there ARMY STRENGTH.

According to this source (http://www.nationalww2museum.org...), peak military strength of the USSR was not much larger than the USA.

12,500,000 - USSR.
12,364,000 - USA

Meanwhile, the US had a much larger Navy, Air Force, and plenty of more industry.

SO what 3 nukes what a super power. i think maybe 50,000 tanks could pay up for 3 nukes.

The atomic bomb that detonated over Hiroshima had a mushroom cloud 1,200 feet in diameter and a blast temperature of over 10,830 °F, making the initial fireball hotter than the surface of the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org...). With a destructive force equal to approximately 15 kilotons of TNT, the bomb's explosion vaporized everything within one to two miles of ground zero; leaving radioactive dust, an EMP burst, and 90% of the city destroyed in its wake. 120,000 total people died from one bomb, dropped by one plane. 50,000 tanks will not save you.

Also they used 2 nukes on an all ready destroyed country on the brink of surrender.

Japan was not on the brink of surrender, to do so would have been dishonorable. But as suicidal Kamikaze tactics demonstrated, Japan was fully prepared to fight to the last man.

Why did they use them? 1 REASON the US was scared by the fact the soviets had declared war on Japan and they were FAR more efficient.

Because Japan was NOT on the brink of surrender and US policymakers feared a massive amphibious invasion of the Japanese homeland was the only way to end the war. Meanwhile the first atomic bomb was dropped on August 6th, 1945, the Soviet Union did not declare war on Japan until the 8th. Seems to me then that it is more likely that Stalin was afraid of Japan or that you have some explaining to do.

USSR could have easily took Japan ,a lot quicker than the US.

Do explain. Without a large navy or airforce, the USSR would a difficult transporting and supplying the literally millions of troops that would be required to occupy and pacify the Japanese homeland.

what the noob did the Americans do? beat a nation that has been at war for 7 years? with the help of china,Australia and a lot other countries.

I sort of still remember the US bailing out the USSR and UK with Lend-Lease. Also something about helping Stalin with a second front in France and Italy.

"US supplies to the Soviet Union"- they sent them like 0.1% of porridge for like 1 year.

According to Wiki, American Lend-Lease to the USSR amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles, 11,400 aircraft, and 1.75 million tons of food.

Which averages out to roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment.(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

May i remind you the reason why Russia needed supplies was because they were FIGHTING A WAR! not just attacking a country across an ocean!

May I remind you that America was fighting 3 wars (Germany, Italy, and Japan) on multiple fronts on four different continents and across two different oceans.

All d day (second front) done was what? Maybe helped end the war a couple of weeks earlier.

Diverting 1,500,000 German troops from the eastern front, accomplishing the complete destruction of the German Luftwaffe and oil industry (through allied bombing), and ending the war just in time before Germany had the chance to develop "wunderwaffe" weapons; including fighter jets, rail guns, ballistic missiles, amerika bombers, and super heavy tanks.

The soviets had been SUCCESSFULLY pushing the Germans back for over a year...

I sort of remember from my college days that the kill/death ratio of the USSR on the Eastern Front was something like 1 German killed for every 13 Russians. Doesn't sound like the Red Army was very efficient (according to my professors anyway).

"Total Available Manpower"-means nothing

Means more recruits and a much larger economy needed to generate wealth and materials.

"Better Weaponry & Technology "- completely bi est opinion.

Where's your atomic bomb?

"Superior Wartime Economy "- its a war i think your ARMY is more important.

I don't understand your point here. The USA can build tanks, planes, ships and equip soldiers faster than the USSR can.

This is not 1870 the navy doesn't matter

So control of the commons and close to 70% of the world's commerce - including lend-lease supplies to USSR and UK doesn't matter?

and Russia did not need a navy because it is surrounded by ice.

The USSR needed the American navy in order to transport 17.5 million tons of military equipment requested by the Russians for lend lease.

" Overall Leadership" Well of topic, opinion

Not an opinion. The Russian military doctrine of Deep Battle was a meat grinder concept that needlessly threw away lives (often through human wave tactics) by attacking head on all fronts in order to force a breach.

and Stalin may have been evil but new how to win a war- Also harry Trooman did drop 2 nukes killing 250,000 Innocent civilians with 2 bombs with offensive names.- GREAT LEADER SHIP. Does this not make u evil?

Stalin issued Stavka Directive No.1919 - which made it legal for Soviet commissars to fire on their own troops if they attempted to run away from the fighting. Does firing on your own troops not make Stalin evil?

unlike the US it couldn't just choose what wars it would look best in.

The US was an isolationist country wanting to stay out of WWII, yet Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and Italy and Germany declared war on the US afterwards.

i thought the Russian navy was small and terrible?

That is the point I was trying to make. I'm not the one claiming that the Russians had a powerful navy.

I see you don't know what happened in Stalingrad. The Russian encircled the city witch led to 1 million Germans being killed.

Made possible because Hitler refused to order a retreat. I see you don't know what happened at Stalingrad.

well the soviets surrounded the city so Rosavlet didn't have much "agreeing" to do.

Yalta took place two months prior to the Battle of Berlin.

why would Russia have air craft carriers it had air bases?

They would if they ever had a strong navy.

conclusion: i proved 90% of your facts wrong so i think that makes me the winner.

And yet you have failed effectively use sources throughout this entire debate.

Russian wins at: Tanks, Armored vehicles

12,000 of which were loaned to the USSR by Lend-Lease http://en.wikipedia.org....

army size.. and a much bigger army.

Redundant. But the USSR's overall size was not much bigger. Please refer back to the original numbers I posted.

moral

Stavka Directive No.1919 and Stalin's approval for the Rape of Berlin do not prove any moral standing for the Red Army. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

navy's became useless after ww1.

http://www.amazon.com...
^^Page 1-519 talks about the 21st century, globalization, modern warfare, and the role of seapower.
Debate Round No. 2
biggest_pro_going

Pro

"you've cleverly ..inserting the word "army" before "strength"- I agree a countries "strength" is the economic plus the army plus the natural resources. But in world WAR 2 ( theirs that word coming back) since it is a war i think it is appropriate to say the main "strength" of a country in a WAR should be based mainly on its army.

What? "diplomatic" Luxemburg has a better diplomatic sis-tam than North Korea. Is Luxemburg stronger than north Korea? defiantly not.

"Remember, World War II was a TOTAL war. Key word: TOTAL. "- key word TOTAL- If a country is committed to "total war" it means 100% of the people were committing 100% of effort to the war. What about when the soldiers are sleeping? or were 100% of the world population committed to war? In Brazil was little Carlos living in a favela in Rio committed 100% to beating Nazi Germany? NO world war 2 was not a "Total war" and the USA was as far away from "total war as it could get".

"According to this source (http://www.nationalww2museum.org......), peak military strength of the USSR was not much larger than the USA. "- There are like 5 sources that state the sizes of the ww2 armies. The USSRs army size is ranged from about 13millon to 24million and the US military is ranged from about 8mllion to 12million. Now u see the extrema biased, you picked the smallest number for the USSR and the smallest from the USSR.

so to sum up: on average: USA= 10,000,000 and the USSR had 17,000,000 - is just one (http://www.angelfire.com...)

"Meanwhile, the US had ... industry."- yes a bigger navy and air force but lets just say the US air force is equal to say 100? and USSR is equal to say 70? BUT in tank force the USSR is like 100 and he USA is like 50 and tanks are more important than an air force.

Also u forget to meson the USSR had far more artillery, Missile launchers, tanks, men and armored vehicles.

"1,200 feet in diameter"- i bet the soviets would compact all there tanks up in a huddle and just wait for the nuke to come. Also MURICA mite have not even been able to get the Russian forces they mite have been taken out by Russia`s great anti air defense (they dropped them of planes). Or would the Americans drop the nukes on the front lines destroying both sides?

"Japan was not on the brink of surrender,"- well it had ALL READY ASKED THE AMERICANS to let it surrender unconditionally so yes it was. But the Americans were like HOW DARE THOSE DIRTY JAPS BOMB OUR HARBOR! WE WONT TAKE THIS SURRENDER WE WOULD RATHER FIRE BOMB THERE CITY'S A BIT MORE!- MURICA.

"feared a massive amphibious invasion of the Japanese homeland was the only way to end the war"- or i dont know just wait a month or 2 for the soviets to do it for them? or for the country to starve?

"Stalin was afraid of Japan"- well he invaded it.... Stalin just fought Nazi Germany about 3X stronger than Japan. The agreement between the USA/USSR the soviets were to help in Japan. 90 days after VE day (the soviets invaded Manchurian 90 days after VE day) Strange the soviets did not want to attack japan after loosing 25,000,000 people why would they hesitate declaring war on another power? (did not even hesitate). Also the soviets took as much land of japan in like 2 weeks as the Americans took in like 1 year.

Soviet efficiency- 1 Manchuria/20 days
US efficiency- 1 Manchuria/1 year NOT GOOD (for all that "strength" i would expect more

"Without a large navy or airforce"- according to u the USA had the greatest air force/navy in the world and look at there horrific speed of advance. So navy/air force can be that important.

"transporting and supplying"- Russia is like a massif rail road and practically BORDERS JAPAN. It would be easy for them. The soviets wouldn't need so much ships to invade every tiny island 1 by 1 like the USA they would just go straight to Japan.

" sort of still remember the US bailing out the USSR and UK"- the USA did not give that much stuff to Russia, it gave a bit but not that much. so u cant just say everything in the USSR done well because the USA supplied it.

"France and Italy."- Italy debating was a problem to Germany and not an asset and by France i am guessing u mean D-day were the Americans eventually sped the war up by 2 weeks and then claimed they done half the work.

"According to Wiki, American Lend-Lease to the USSR amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles, 11,400 aircraft, and 1.75 million tons of food" yes but all this is like 1% of Russia`s supply's and also over half of this was not even needed! as it was send after Stalingrad when the soviets had won.

"fighting 3 wars"- words cant express the anger i am in about that statement.

Italy- Italian forces were mainly defeated by the British by the time America jumped in to save the day Italy had retreated out of Africa and all the Americans done on that "front" was invade VICHY FRANCE a puppet governments COLONY witch was happy to surrender to the US.

Germany-well this front lasted under 2 years and sped the war up by 2 weeks so NO.

Japan- YES but i am sorry that's only 1 war not 3. Even japan America was helped by Australia/china heavily and even the dun dun dun soviets.

"Diverting 1,500,000 German troops....... super heavy tanks. "- Diverting not killing. Super weapons? please u think Germany could have beet Russia back 1000s of KM by producing some kind of "heavy tank"? the Germans did invent some "super weapons" but they done nothing to slow ether he US or USSR.

"kill/death ratio"- K/D? this is not COD and this argument is not about the what u think the "K/D ratio" was it is about the countries strength. and the K/D ratios you recall from your un sourced collage days is irreverent? Its like me saying i recall from the old oxford days that the Soviets had 1billon planes-its a complete lie but i could still say it.

"Means more recruits and a much larger economy needed to generate wealth and materials."- but if it did mean those things why now a days does North Korea have more men in its army than the USA? the USA has more "available man power".

note- when u say "available man power" do u count the millions of quoter toners in America or not?

"Where's your atomic bomb?"- My atomic bomb? I dot have any at the time... Or do u mean ww2 soviet unions atomic bombs?- well 1 atomic bomb is unrelated to weapon tech but if u want to go off topic fine.

"USA can build tanks, planes, ships and equip soldiers faster than the USSR can. "- well if like u say American economic was 1 billion times as beneficent as everyone else s why did they they have all the tanks? NO the soviets were making T-34s at the fasted rate ever in history so no u are wrong.

OK i don't have enough space left to disprove all your points so i will bullet point whats wrong with each one:
-NO it dose not, done
-u said why the US needed a navy not Russia- OF TOPIC
-Well it did take out Nazi Germany so ye it worked pretty well.
-the Brits done the same thing in ww1- its not evil its discipline and also needed when up Agnese the Nazis- (yes Stalin is evil but so was Trooman-250,000 innocent lives to show of a weapon)
-agreed Russia had a bad navy case closed
-Hitler could not retreat because the Germans were encircled.
-As u can see by my last source when the Yalta conference took place Russia was on top of Berlin while the US had just penetrated Germany.
-but as agreed they did not have a STRONG NAVY
-4 sources were used to show all points
-Total USSR armored vehicles - 12,000 = still a lot more than the US
-covered
-i mean will to fight for there country. not morels- sorry i meant morale
-navy= BAD and amazon.com is an irrelevant source
-sorry for the long list but i ran out

sources:
http://www.angelfire.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
Century of war fair- DVD collection
https://www.youtube.com...
Jingle_Bombs

Con

since it is a war i think it is appropriate to say the main "strength" of a country in a WAR should be based mainly on its army.

You still don't get it. World War II was a total war; where victory was obtained through moral and military/industrial attrition. Winning a battle with your army in WWII did not move you any closer to victory if you were physically or materially unable to replace your losses. Fact.

What? "diplomatic" Luxembourg has a better diplomatic sis-tam than North Korea. Is Luxembourg stronger than north Korea? defiantly not.

Luxembourg is a US ally and member of NATO, were North Korea to actually attack Luxembourg, Luxembourg would come out on top due to its "diplomatic advantages" with NATO and the USA.

you picked the smallest number for the USSR and the smallest from the USSR. so to sum up: on average: USA= 10,000,000 and the USSR had 17,000,000 - is just one (http://www.angelfire.com......)

Your own source; http://www.angelfire.com... lists only the industrial production numbers from WWII and total number of casualties for each country. No where on that webpage does it ever mention "17 million Soviets" or show peak troop levels for the USA or USSR. If my numbers were even slightly biased, then yours are completely imaginary.

Also u forget to meson the USSR had far more artillery, Missile launchers, tanks, men and armored vehicles.

You again continue to reject the fact that a great deal of Soviet was equipment was in fact lend to them by the UK and USA, or manufactured with American imported steel.

HOW DARE THOSE DIRTY JAPS BOMB OUR HARBOR! WE WONT TAKE THIS SURRENDER WE WOULD RATHER FIRE BOMB THERE CITY'S A BIT MORE!- MURICA.

RAWR!! HOW DARE THEM GERMANS INVADE THE MOTHERLAND! I, COMRADE STALIN, SHALL PERMIT MY FORCES TO RAPE EVERY INNOCENNT WOMEN AND CHILD IN BERLIN:http://www.theguardian.com... AND SHALL I SHALL RULE WITH AN IRONFIST EVERY EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRY FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS! HAIL MOTHER RUSSIA!

US efficiency- 1 Manchuria/1 year NOT GOOD (for all that "strength" I would expect more

2 bombs. 2 planes. The whole of Japan surrenders unconditionally.

How's that for efficiency!

"transporting and supplying"- Russia is like a massif rail road and practically BORDERS JAPAN. It would be easy for them.

This is silly. Japan is a dug in island with a formidable navy and airforce. Each Japanese civilian was willing to fight to the last man. Russia would not get very far with the expected Japanese insurgency, and could not hope to support or supply a million man army in Japan without having the logistical support of a large navy or airforce.

it (lend-lease) was send after Stalingrad when the soviets had won.

The most crucial Lend-Lease supplies to the USSR came during 1941-1942 immediately after Operation Barbarrosa. You'll remember that It had something to do with the Red Army being caught totally unprepared for war, and then leaving most of its equipment and armour behind as they ran from the Germans.

"fighting 3 wars"- words cant express the anger i am in about that statement.

I'm sorry then that the Russians didn't bother to fight in the other two. Apparently they weren't nearly as strong or as capable as the American military afterall.

"kill/death ratio"- K/D?

Nobody knows for sure what the exact k/d ratios were on the Eastern Front. But judging from your own source: http://www.angelfire.com... 29 million Soviets dead compared to 5.65 million Germans (from the whole of WWII); we know that it must haven been pretty horrendous on the Russian end. Which -videogame stat or not- does infact statistically prove that the Red Army had a habit of taking many more casualties then the Germans did when fighting on the Eastern Front. I argue then that this was most likely due to the Germans being vastly more superior to the Red Army in terms of battle doctrine, competency, and quality of arms. And if that assertion is -in the debate judges' opinion- historically accurate, then you have failed to prove that the USSR had the strongest army in WWII.

North Korea have more men in its army than the USA? the USA has more "available man power".

Not really sure again what illiterate point your trying to make, but the facts show that North Korea does NOT have more active duty personnel in the military than the USA.

USA - 1,369,532
DPRK -1,190,000

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

My atomic bomb? I dot have any at the time...

Then you must concede to the voters that the Soviet Union would have been at a significant military disadvantage to the USA who had them.

NO the soviets were making T-34s at the fasted rate ever in history so no u are wrong.

All thanks again to US imported gasoline, aluminum, copper, zinc, and steel from lend lease to actually make the tanks, and enough food to feed an army (or a soviet workforce) of 12 million people every single day for the entire war. (http://wwiidiaries.com...)

OK i don't have enough space left to disprove all your points so i will bullet point whats wrong with each one:
-NO it dose not, done
-u said why the US needed a navy not Russia
- OF TOPIC -Well it did take out Nazi Germany so ye it worked pretty well.
-the Brits done the same thing in ww1- its not evil its discipline and also needed when up Agnese the Nazis
- (yes Stalin is evil but so was Trooman-250,000 innocent lives to show of a weapon)
-agreed Russia had a bad navy case closed
-Hitler could not retreat because the Germans were encircled.
-As u can see by my last source when the Yalta conference took place Russia was on top of Berlin while the US had just penetrated Germany. -but as agreed they did not have a STRONG NAVY
-4 sources were used to show all points
-Total USSR armored vehicles - 12,000
= still a lot more than the US -covered
-i mean will to fight for there country. not morels- sorry i meant morale -navy
= BAD and amazon.com is an irrelevant source -sorry for the long list but i ran out

...or to say, simply put: ATOMIC BOMBS.

Holy heck, what a play by Derek Jeter! Yankees win! Yankees win!

/Ballgame
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Brenden-Lawrence 2 years ago
Brenden-Lawrence
Jingle_Bombs won
Posted by biggest_pro_going 2 years ago
biggest_pro_going
just for 1 last note as you can see 90% of what he said i have ALREADY COVERED by me or just wrong facts!- for example "http://en.wikipedia.org...; when u said USA had more than N Korea- if u LOOK at it north Korea has more total noob.

or when u said the it never seas the USSR has more troops then the US- IT CLEARLY STATES USSR has over 4 TIMES the divisions as the US threw the war.

as u start to loose i can see you stop disproving my points and start stating incorrect info or stuff i have already covered.

and don't start up a debate about the US having a clear con-shins. Germany invaded the USSR destroying its land and massacring its people. the USA invaded japan because japan attacked its harbor after the US sanctioned and threatened it.

stupid MURICAN cant handle he has lost to his soviet superiors.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 2 years ago
Proving_a_Negative
They were ill equipped against the Germans. I would say Germany was the strongest until America developed the first nuclear bomb. Just an opinion though.
No votes have been placed for this debate.