Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

japan v. germany

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 1:53:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Uh, Germany's on one side of the world, Japan on the other. Wouldn't happen. Ever. Not by themselves anyway.

In WW1, Japan seized German colonial possessions in the pacific, but then again those are little islands.

But, if they were to (by magic) to go right beside each other, there woudl be various factors. The Germans were able to muster together 3 million troops and drive into Russia. That said Japan used he same amount to beat back 4-5 million in China.

So really, it wouldn't happen.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 6:20:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
@ Panda

It's a hypothetical, obviously. He wasn't asking if it was possible, he's asking what if.

=====

Germany would destroy Japan. It would be absolute annihilation. Germany did a pretty good job of fighting all of Europe and Russia at the same time - I'm sure it would succeed easily against a small country like Japan.
asiandebater
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 6:23:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
ummm Japan would win because Japanese people are so much cooler
and Germany wouldn't make it without Hitler so there is no contest
Master Debater:)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 6:39:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 6:20:31 PM, Nags wrote:
Germany would destroy Japan. It would be absolute annihilation. Germany did a pretty good job of fighting all of Europe and Russia at the same time - I'm sure it would succeed easily against a small country like Japan.

"Small country like Japan"? That is a fairly inaccurate representation of Japanese power.

Here's some numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Obviously, Germany has bigger numbers served - 18.2 million, to be exact. Japan had about 8.4 million serve - smaller, but hardly "small."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 6:41:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Gief a little more information. Who starts the war over what?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:18:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At the time, Japan was extremely isolated in the pacific, and its main power was naval. Assuming that Germany and Japan were the sole combatants, I think that Germany likely would have won. Consider how close Germany was to developing the atomic bomb before their defeat, and consider the Battle of Britain, as well. One of Germany's biggest strengths during this time was its Air Force, the Luftwaffe. Japanese air strength was hardly anything to be impressed about, a harsh contrast to Britain's Royal Air Force (RAF).

During an assault on Japan, Germany would likely have softened up the Japanese through aerial bombardment, since getting tanks to the mainland would have been difficult without having first charged through the Japanese Naval fleet, which, while possible, would have taken far too much time, and would have ruined the shock value of the famous Blitzkrieg tactic. While Ships like the Bismarck and the Tirpitz would have been able, in combination with German U-Boats and naval destroyers, to crack down on the Japanese fleet, it would clearly have left them with a significant number of losses that may have turned the tide negatively in the pacific (at least, from a German standpoint).

Furthermore, let us say that, in the absence of other aggressors, the Germans may very well have completed the atomic bomb, which, as we all know, was the primary factor which led to the surrender of the Japanese.

In summary, I would contend that Germany would easily overwhelm the Japanese technologically, numerically, and strategically. Germany lost mainly due to the multiple aggressors, and the regrettable decision to open a two-front war (something Hitler had hoped to avoid, as that was what helped to defeat Germany in World War I), and if the Germans had been able to concentrate all of their efforts on the Japanese, instead of being forced to divide their forces, there is no doubt in my mind that Hitler would have faced a simple victory indeed.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:36:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I contend your issue of air supremacy favouring the Germans, Cody. The Japanese were also quite easily advanced with their own fighters, developed separately from German technology, that could have rivaled German fighters. The Japanese Zero is a good example of this.

And, assuming that the geographical locations of Germany and Japan stay the same, Germany would have had a tough time keeping the Luftwaffe supplied, while Japan had many at-hand resources and good coastal and air defenses.

But, you're quite correct about the nuclear bomb aspect.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:45:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 7:36:06 PM, Volkov wrote:
I contend your issue of air supremacy favouring the Germans, Cody. The Japanese were also quite easily advanced with their own fighters, developed separately from German technology, that could have rivaled German fighters. The Japanese Zero is a good example of this.

And, assuming that the geographical locations of Germany and Japan stay the same, Germany would have had a tough time keeping the Luftwaffe supplied, while Japan had many at-hand resources and good coastal and air defenses.

But, you're quite correct about the nuclear bomb aspect.

The problem is, in their desperation against the Americans, the Japanese had to resort to Kamikaze techniques, due to holes in the efficacy of the Japanese Air Force; it's clear that, with the German War Machine requiring several countries to bring it down, Japan would have been sorely lacking on its own merit.

America could not have brought down the Third Reich on its own, very likely. They took heavy losses during the war, despite entering extremely late in the conflict. On a general scale (at a 1:1 national ratio), Germany>America>Japan. Of the 3 Axis Powers, Germany was clearly the superior.

Furthermore, I've already noted that it would take a bit of time to carve through the Japanese fleet, but that it would be quite possible, especially after the aerial 'softening-up' process, and naval powerhouses like the Bismarck, Tirpitz, and U-Boats. With Germany's naval powers, it wouldn't have been such a difficult matter to keep the Luftwaffe sufficiently supplied. And, even assuming that the Japanese somehow fended off the naval/aerial assault, there's no way that Japan could have beaten Germany, a landlocked country insensitive to naval attack, on its own. It wouldn't have had the resources, the manpower, or any technological advantage. When it comes to ground combat, the Germans would have, for lack of a better term, beaten the bloody sh!t out of the Japanese. You can't fault me there.

And yeah, the atomic weapon would have definitely been a big trump card for Germany.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:13:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I concede on almost all points Cody, except your point about naval power being able to fuel the Luftwaffe, mostly because having fueling supplies basically centralized in one grouping - the expeditionary German naval force - presents an easy target for Japanese naval power to attack and essentially cut off what would be a major advantage for the Germans, the air force.

Unless Germany could secure resources and alternate fuel sources and points from China, Russia, or other areas, they'll have a difficult time facing Japanese forces. Now, given the fact that Japan dung WW2 includes China and Korea, and that German land forces could have a very good chance of wiping out Japanese forces their and taking land, there is an easy route for victory.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:21:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 8:13:44 PM, Volkov wrote:
I concede on almost all points Cody, except your point about naval power being able to fuel the Luftwaffe, mostly because having fueling supplies basically centralized in one grouping - the expeditionary German naval force - presents an easy target for Japanese naval power to attack and essentially cut off what would be a major advantage for the Germans, the air force.

Unless Germany could secure resources and alternate fuel sources and points from China, Russia, or other areas, they'll have a difficult time facing Japanese forces. Now, given the fact that Japan dung WW2 includes China and Korea, and that German land forces could have a very good chance of wiping out Japanese forces their and taking land, there is an easy route for victory.

I have weighed the idea of a cutoff of German supply ships; however, like I said, the Germans maintain the advantage offered by their U-Boats, something that the Japanese didn't have, and were not used to dealing with. Furthermore, part of the German aerial bombardment would also be against the Japanese fleet, which would provide an easier avenue for resupplying the aforementioned Luftwaffe forces. Also, remember that the only reason that the Japanese Navy was out in the Pacific in the first place was because they were anticipating the American onslaught. Since Hitler was the original aggressor, against Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, etc. it is very likely that the Japanese wouldn't be anticipating a German attack, which would give the advantage to the Germans, since they would retain the element of surprise, and would have an easier trip to the Japanese mainland, taking out the lighter resistance along the way.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:47:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Japanese were used to dealing with submarines, since the Americans and British deployed several against them during the war.

But, I digress. The element of surprise is negligible here; this is a war between Germany and Japan based on their forces during the war as a singular event, and not one that coincides with other events during WW2.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:53:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 8:47:13 PM, Volkov wrote:
The Japanese were used to dealing with submarines, since the Americans and British deployed several against them during the war.

That wouldn't matter, because the Japanese wouldn't have dealt with the Americans and British prior to Germany. Remember, Germany and Japan are the only combatants here; furthermore, Germany was technologically superior to all other nations during the war; it lost because it was overwhelmed by multiple adversaries. The German U-Boats were far more capable than Allied submarines.


But, I digress. The element of surprise is negligible here; this is a war between Germany and Japan based on their forces during the war as a singular event, and not one that coincides with other events during WW2.

The problem is, we're looking at conflict during the time period; this assumes that WW2 isn't actually happening. It's an alternate time line, and since this will be the first conflict during this time, Germany will definitely have the element of surprise, since they would probably attack first (since Japan would probably be aware of its inability to attack Germany so far inland without being intercepted along the way). It's not like the two forces randomly clash - there must be a first act of aggression, and it's historically more likely to be from Hitler, not Hirohito.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:38:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 8:53:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
That wouldn't matter, because the Japanese wouldn't have dealt with the Americans and British prior to Germany. Remember, Germany and Japan are the only combatants here; furthermore, Germany was technologically superior to all other nations during the war; it lost because it was overwhelmed by multiple adversaries. The German U-Boats were far more capable than Allied submarines.

While correct in stating that the Germans had far superior technology in terms of submarines, the Japanese did have a substantial fleet and experience fighting with and against them during the Russo-Japanese War. This was, in fact, the first war where the Japanese learned to appreciate the value of submarine warfare, and their first subsequent experience with them. Considering that war was in 1905, this gives Japan plenty of time to become accustomed to submarines, and build their own fleet. Japan apparently had one of the largest submarine fleets in the world at the outset of WW2 - the problem was that they never utilized it properly against the allies. The same may or may not occur in a hypothetical war between Germany and Japan. Either way, the face remains that there would have been a substantial force for the Germans to go up against, regardless of whether or not they were more technologically advanced.

The problem is, we're looking at conflict during the time period; this assumes that WW2 isn't actually happening. It's an alternate time line, and since this will be the first conflict during this time, Germany will definitely have the element of surprise, since they would probably attack first (since Japan would probably be aware of its inability to attack Germany so far inland without being intercepted along the way). It's not like the two forces randomly clash - there must be a first act of aggression, and it's historically more likely to be from Hitler, not Hirohito.

Agreed.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:45:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 9:38:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/24/2009 8:53:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
That wouldn't matter, because the Japanese wouldn't have dealt with the Americans and British prior to Germany. Remember, Germany and Japan are the only combatants here; furthermore, Germany was technologically superior to all other nations during the war; it lost because it was overwhelmed by multiple adversaries. The German U-Boats were far more capable than Allied submarines.

While correct in stating that the Germans had far superior technology in terms of submarines, the Japanese did have a substantial fleet and experience fighting with and against them during the Russo-Japanese War. This was, in fact, the first war where the Japanese learned to appreciate the value of submarine warfare, and their first subsequent experience with them. Considering that war was in 1905, this gives Japan plenty of time to become accustomed to submarines, and build their own fleet. Japan apparently had one of the largest submarine fleets in the world at the outset of WW2 - the problem was that they never utilized it properly against the allies. The same may or may not occur in a hypothetical war between Germany and Japan. Either way, the face remains that there would have been a substantial force for the Germans to go up against, regardless of whether or not they were more technologically advanced.

Alright, let's go with the assumption that the Japanese were accustomed to submarine warfare. Even with that experience, we still have to recognize that the Germans had not only technological superiority, but also numerical superiority, and strategical superiority, as Hitler was known as a brilliant military strategist, before his physical and mental decline brought about by the turning tide of the war, the gradual advance of the allies, and the tremendous pressure on his shoulders.

Also, as we agreed below, the Germans would likely be attacking first, which would give the Germans the added advantage of surprise. If we calculate the odds of victory on the open seas, the Germans clearly have the advantage; and, assuming that the Germans made it to the Japanese mainland, we can certainly both agree that they would have had little trouble in ground warfare, where they would obviously have possessed an even larger advantage.


The problem is, we're looking at conflict during the time period; this assumes that WW2 isn't actually happening. It's an alternate time line, and since this will be the first conflict during this time, Germany will definitely have the element of surprise, since they would probably attack first (since Japan would probably be aware of its inability to attack Germany so far inland without being intercepted along the way). It's not like the two forces randomly clash - there must be a first act of aggression, and it's historically more likely to be from Hitler, not Hirohito.

Agreed.

Referenced in my above arguments.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 10:01:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 9:45:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Alright, let's go with the assumption that the Japanese were accustomed to submarine warfare. Even with that experience, we still have to recognize that the Germans had not only technological superiority, but also numerical superiority, and strategical superiority, as Hitler was known as a brilliant military strategist, before his physical and mental decline brought about by the turning tide of the war, the gradual advance of the allies, and the tremendous pressure on his shoulders.

Also, as we agreed below, the Germans would likely be attacking first, which would give the Germans the added advantage of surprise. If we calculate the odds of victory on the open seas, the Germans clearly have the advantage; and, assuming that the Germans made it to the Japanese mainland, we can certainly both agree that they would have had little trouble in ground warfare, where they would obviously have possessed an even larger advantage.

As I said, I agree that the advantage is on the side of the Germans - but I do believe you are discounting the Japanese naval, air and strategic forces too quickly. Japanese power by 1939 was certainly weaker than Germany, and stretched to boot due to the war in China, but by no means should it be counted as down and out.

There are simply too many logistical problems for the Germans in fighting a war that was literally on the other side of the planet. The supply line for such a force would be long and easily prone to Japanese assault - assault that could come from almost any direction, due to the Japanese control of the area. German forces would have to rely on the Japanese inability to defend naval and ground territory against what would essentially be moderately-sized expeditionary forces. The Japanese would have had easy advantage over them, not only in sheer numbers but because they were already ground in. It took the entire US Pacific fleet in several monumental battles in order to defeat the heavily defensive Japanese - there is a small chance that Germany could have done the same with limited forces unless they gained footholds in certain land bases in the area.

It will take a lot more than more advanced technology to take out Japan in this case, unless of course it deals with a nuclear weapon. Hitler might have been able to strategically win, and could of course be free from external pressure because there is no way the Japanese could wage a war in Germany. But, there is always internal pressure he could have faced, which I have no doubts would have occurred if there was an inkling of defeat of their expeditionary force at the hands of the Japanese.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 2:53:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 10:01:14 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/24/2009 9:45:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Alright, let's go with the assumption that the Japanese were accustomed to submarine warfare. Even with that experience, we still have to recognize that the Germans had not only technological superiority, but also numerical superiority, and strategical superiority, as Hitler was known as a brilliant military strategist, before his physical and mental decline brought about by the turning tide of the war, the gradual advance of the allies, and the tremendous pressure on his shoulders.

Also, as we agreed below, the Germans would likely be attacking first, which would give the Germans the added advantage of surprise. If we calculate the odds of victory on the open seas, the Germans clearly have the advantage; and, assuming that the Germans made it to the Japanese mainland, we can certainly both agree that they would have had little trouble in ground warfare, where they would obviously have possessed an even larger advantage.

As I said, I agree that the advantage is on the side of the Germans - but I do believe you are discounting the Japanese naval, air and strategic forces too quickly. Japanese power by 1939 was certainly weaker than Germany, and stretched to boot due to the war in China, but by no means should it be counted as down and out.

We may not count it as being impotent, but we have to keep in mind that Germany's forces haven't invaded any countries, and are essentially on standby until ordered otherwise; on the flip side, you're painting a picture of a Japanese military stretched to its limits. It's well known that one of the main causes of the downfall of Japan was precisely because of over-expansion. For example, in Risk, if one extends his borders to their absolute limits, it's very little trouble for someone to come through and sweep nearly every one-manned territory. In the same way, with the Japanese military spread extremely thin, it wouldn't take a great deal of effort on the part of the Germans, especially considering that the Third Reich has every conceivable advantage.


There are simply too many logistical problems for the Germans in fighting a war that was literally on the other side of the planet. The supply line for such a force would be long and easily prone to Japanese assault - assault that could come from almost any direction, due to the Japanese control of the area. German forces would have to rely on the Japanese inability to defend naval and ground territory against what would essentially be moderately-sized expeditionary forces. The Japanese would have had easy advantage over them, not only in sheer numbers but because they were already ground in. It took the entire US Pacific fleet in several monumental battles in order to defeat the heavily defensive Japanese - there is a small chance that Germany could have done the same with limited forces unless they gained footholds in certain land bases in the area.

The problem is, until defeating Germany, America's policy was merely containment, to prevent the Japanese Empire from spreading further and causing more problems, so that American forces could focus on the European theater. When the U.S. finally concentrated on attacking the Japanese in 1945, we saw an extremely quick victory that took only a matter of months, as opposed to the years required (and combined Allied forces) that were needed to take down the Germans.

Unlike the Americans, the Germans wouldn't be focusing on containment, and forces wouldn't be divided; with Japan as the sole adversary, the so-called 'expeditions' would be far larger than you predict. With all forces able to concentrate on bringing down Hirohito's Japan, it would be a far quicker victory, since the battle would have Hitler's undivided attention; and, even if the Japanese were capable strategists, Hitler was still far superior in terms of the ruthlessness necessary to claim victory.


It will take a lot more than more advanced technology to take out Japan in this case, unless of course it deals with a nuclear weapon. Hitler might have been able to strategically win, and could of course be free from external pressure because there is no way the Japanese could wage a war in Germany. But, there is always internal pressure he could have faced, which I have no doubts would have occurred if there was an inkling of defeat of their expeditionary force at the hands of the Japanese.

Remember though, the German war machine was completely invincible up until their defeat at the hands of the Russian winter. In an alternate historical context, the Germans would be going in ready, with Hitler's inspiring, charismatic indoctrination of German superiority fresh in their mind. Since Hitler would not have faced even the chance of defeat prior to this, there is a very minimal risk of internal pressure, since Germany as a whole would still have a great deal of confidence in Hitler's ability to lead.

Also, as you've agreed above, Hitler had all of the advantages; he had advanced technology, numerical superiority, and strategic genius, which you admit would have given the Germans a great shot at victory, if not guaranteed success. Furthermore, the confidence of the German expedition clearly prevails, because we've both agreed to the implausibility of a Japanese assault on Germany, due to its invulnerability to conventional assaults.

Even in the worst case scenario, the alleged 'internal pressure' faced by Hitler at the slightest probability of defeat would be far outweighed by the multitude of advantages at the Germans' disposal. Due to the hypothetical nature of the discussion, I certainly can't rule out certain unexpected circumstances, or random chance, but if we had to make a prediction, historical precedent and hard facts tell us that the Third Reich would have multiple methods by which to claim victory over the inferior Japanese Empire.
1stLordofTheVenerability
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 11:47:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I didn't realize my debate was being analyzed in the forums. How droll.

Firstly, i must ask where you receive your information about the atomic development of the Germans? I was under the same impression, but the War completely desolated Germany and they obviously lost all atomic knowledge. I doubt that they even have it, today. As such, I couldn't find any sources regarding their knowledge of nuclear weaponry.

I can rebut much of what is being said later on, but the Zero is inferior in almost every aspect to planes like the Messerschmidt bf 109 or the Focke Wulfe. The only technical aspect that reigns over the Messer is the maximum cruise speed.

As I have exemplified, the Japanese carriers would have been easily destroyed by Kriegsmarine submarines, one by one, due to the absense of radar for nearly two years.

However, it appears that, despite my solid arguments, the public is of the belief that Japan could actually have held its own against the Germans. And one other thing, I remember reading a comment about Ninjas, and it was this bushido attitude that caused many lives to be wasted in mass (suicidal) charges if the battle was lost.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 3:05:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 11:47:18 AM, 1stLordofTheVenerability wrote:
I didn't realize my debate was being analyzed in the forums. How droll.

It isn't being analyzed. This discussion wasn't prompted by your debate, and it's a little strange of you to believe otherwise.


Firstly, i must ask where you receive your information about the atomic development of the Germans? I was under the same impression, but the War completely desolated Germany and they obviously lost all atomic knowledge. I doubt that they even have it, today. As such, I couldn't find any sources regarding their knowledge of nuclear weaponry.

I think you misunderstand me. In the context of this discussion, we're not looking at postwar statistics; we assume that WWII did not happen and is not currently happening. Germany and Japan are the only combatants here, so they haven't "obviously lost all atomic knowledge", because knowledge can't be affected by a war that isn't happening.


I can rebut much of what is being said later on, but the Zero is inferior in almost every aspect to planes like the Messerschmidt bf 109 or the Focke Wulfe. The only technical aspect that reigns over the Messer is the maximum cruise speed.

As I have exemplified, the Japanese carriers would have been easily destroyed by Kriegsmarine submarines, one by one, due to the absense of radar for nearly two years.

However, it appears that, despite my solid arguments, the public is of the belief that Japan could actually have held its own against the Germans. And one other thing, I remember reading a comment about Ninjas, and it was this bushido attitude that caused many lives to be wasted in mass (suicidal) charges if the battle was lost.

I've already discussed the different German advantages, and established the Third Reich's superiority over other axis powers. As the saying goes, "Chill the fu*k out. I've got this."
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 3:27:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
First major obstacle: How da F they gonna fight eachother on the other side of the world?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
tmhustler
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 10:47:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 3:05:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/26/2009 11:47:18 AM, 1stLordofTheVenerability wrote:
I didn't realize my debate was being analyzed in the forums. How droll.

It isn't being analyzed. This discussion wasn't prompted by your debate, and it's a little strange of you to believe otherwise.



The difference between this forum topic and the debate is here the question his who would win in a war? the debate is that "Germany would have annihilated japan"( in the ww2 time period) difference is you could win a war without annihilating your opponent. The U.S.A did not even annihilate Japan, would need a full scale invasion of the main land to do that. no air craft carriers, no transport vessels, no way to get bombers there,no nuclear bomb, no annihilation
latest debate http://www.debate.org...
purpose of education only 3 votes so far