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

An WW2 debate that is sure to become off topic and irrelevant!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 4/17/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 767 times Debate No: 52734
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Where shall I start, oh hot-headed opponent?


Why shalt thine challenge an opposition clearly multiple times better than ye?
Debate Round No. 1


challenge accepted, however in our last debate you were discrediting Japan very much for their war-time accomplishments. Are we strictly staying within each respective nations attributes during WW2?


Let's just argue that debator's opinion is divided depending on which side they are arguing for. That's 2 rounds gone, quickly, start arguing. Or shall this be a debate that provides no cases and is simply one of pure accusations?
Debate Round No. 2


Screw it, I'm going to address every one of your last points from our previous argument. You state and quote from Japanese admiral "Gentlemen, we've kicked a rabid dog". I suppose this one admiral influences the decisions and opinions of the entire Japanese army and government, hmm?

During the course of ww2, the U.S. Navy contained 88 small escort Fleet carriers, and 22 aircraft carriers, and many were carried over from the 20's and 30's. Still short 20 of the 137 you said, however. Are we using wikipedia as a resource again? I thought we agreed to not. Probably the greatest Naval aircraft to combat the zero was the F6F Hellcat. The Zero was superior to it in most ways. The Zero, depending on the variant, had two 20mm cannons, and 4 7.7mm machine guns. The F6F, depending on the variant, had between 4-6 12.7mm machine guns, overall the advantage in firepower goes to the Zero. The engine was superior, and the F6F's bulkiness made it slower and an easier target to hit. So we can agree that the Zero was superior to the Hellcat. This would grant the Japanese 1on1 air superiority, but the american war machine could pump out tanks and aircraft faster then you writing your name.

Ok, some RAF pilots were veterans of WW1, fair enough. The same is the with the Luftwaffe. You claim that the treaty of Versaille cut the german military into pieces. Flying clubs were commissioned for the exact purpose of training recruits and veterans who to fly the new aircraft, and shooting them down. They never did quite stop. What makes you think that the Spitfire was superior to the Bf 109? And perhaps you forgot the Germans had Radar as well.

You'r arguments on the nationality of the pilots of the Luftwaffe is completely ludicrous and un-researched, for the same reasons listed above.

The Japanese did not fight bravely, they fought tenaciously. Japanese P.O.W's were the lowest out of every other nation, because they would fight the death, evidence of this has been recorded on just about every island the marines landed on.

You say the British had heavy artillery batteries. What a coincidence! So did the germans. You claim that the Churchill was faster then the Panther, Tiger, Panzer 1 through 4, and just about every recon vehicle the germans had to offer? That's simply ridiculous, the Churchill had a top speed of 15 mph, let's do a quick comparison. The Tiger had a top speed of 26 mph, the Panther had a top speed of 29 mph, the Panzer 1 had a top speed of 31 mph, and the Panzer IV had a top speed of 26 mph. Everyone faster then the Churchill. The max speed of the Sherman was 30 mph, faster then some of the german tanks, but not all. So you're point over allied tank speed superiority is invalid. Also, I would love to know how you measure a tank engines noise. To put it bluntly, tank engines are noisy, it really doesn't count for anything saying some are quieter then others. Where does your 25 to 1 comparison come from? You can't make a pint by flashing numbers in my face without sources.

So, It appears I've successfully countered your counters, made a few points on top of that.

Sources, WW2 reference reference guide, WW2 aircraft resource, Military resource: World war 2.

I would supply links but I don't know how. Darn technology!


You claim to believe that the Hellcat was better than the Zero. You are wrong there.

Prior to the capturing of a Zero before the Battle of Midway, the Americans had no idea how to counter it. By capturing the Zero, they knew it was weak and disadvantaged when attacking in a nosedive. So it is indeed tactics, not strength of the two planes, which decide which is better.

The Germans didn't have radar. Where on earth did you receive that information? The Germans believed the British ability to see in the dark relied on carrots, not radar, clearly proving they were unaware of the advantage the British had.

You also have seemed to forgotten the British cracked Enigma. The British, as well as radar, knew where and when the Germans would strike.

Now to the planes themselves. The BF-109 would only be able to fly at a top speed of 409 MPH, as opposed to the Spitfire's 450 MPH. Those 41 MPH meant that Spitfires could chase down German scouts flying over the Channel, as well as having advantages while in dogfights. The British would fly in squadrons, with fully loaded machine guns, against the Stukas and He111's and BF-109's, which could only stay over Britiain for 2-5 minutes, before being forced back to refuel. Also, if an Englishman was shot down, he could hop into another Spitfire the same day and continue fighting. A German? He would've been captured and disallowed to fight for the rest of the war.

The Germans didn't have many heavy artillery batteries by the second battle of El Alamein; they had been wiped out by a raid prior to the battle. The British had over 1000 tanks during the second battle of El Alamein, while the Germans had 250. So your German strength superiority argument is invalid, as the Allied Sherman outnumbered German ones 3-1.

Rommel was also short on food, fuel and oil. You can't ride a tank without fuel, therefore you can't fire it either. So the Panthers and Panzers would've been sitting ducks either way.

The Panzer I, as stated in your argument, is the only tank faster than a Sherman. But there weren't many Panzer I's in the North African front, and if there were, I highly doubt a 1 MPH difference would've made any difference.

But back to the current argument: The Japanese Imperialists are better than the Fascists. Reasons, reinforced by sources:

1. The Fascists forced the people to be fully devoted to their country, or they would've been executed/deported. The Japanese didn't stoop to that level, which allowed free speech, free beliefs and freedom altogether. Not extreme freedom, but enough for the people of Japan to breath. The Germans and Italians? They were suffocated by unfair dictators.

2. Nazi Ideology itself.
The Nazi ideology believes in Anti-Semitism, which is hatred of the Jews. Now, believing certain people are sub-humans for their religion is pure rhubarb. The Germans would embrace this and exterminate over 6 million Jews in over 500 concentration camps.

3. Military stupidity
Both the Imperialists and Fascists made errors, such as not knowing their codes had been broken and choosing to attack military superpowers (the USA and the Soviet Union), but some of the more horrendous military errors were made by the German High Command. I will list a few for examples:

1. The Battle of Dunkirk.
Allowing the British army to regroup probably led the Nazis to loss in the Western Front.
2. Alliance with Italy.
Italy's army took eight months to conquer Abbysinia (Ethiopia). So why did Hitler help Mussolini out? Mussolini, in my opinion, bogged down the Afrika Korps. The Afrika Korps could've been the one army that could've won the Battle of Moscow, which brings me to the German's next military problem...
3. Operation Barbarossa
The Germans already had a pact: did they really have to send three million troops because of Hitler's belief this was just "lebensraum" he could easily swipe? Turns out not. Everything from war industry to propaganda was stronger in the Soviet Union.
4. Hitler's declaration of war on the USA
The Germans already had problems in Russia; why stick your arse into North America when Russia isn't finished? A stupid declaration of war, signing a surrender in North Africa, Italy and Western Europe.

Those are my arguments, everything refuted, problems made for Pro, good day.
Debate Round No. 3


The Zero was aerodynamically and structurally better then the Hellcat, and its firepower also exceed that of the Hellcat. You don't determine an aircraft effectiveness on quantity. Strategically, Zero's would be adjacent to the sun, so the enemy could not see them, and surprise attack. This is, if they had already detected them, Otherwise a naval battle would consist of aerial dogfights.

You cannot determine model superiority between the spitfire and the 109 because each variant was different. You would have to argue model variants, not the aircraft in general.

I was not arguing for german tank STRENGTH superiority, I was arguing for german tank superiority with quality and ability. All around, the german tanks had higher calibre guns, and were faster. The germans may not have been deprived of vital resources had they not attacked the Russia, my last argument still stands. And I don't think Sherman' were setting tank kill records in North Africa with that 5 mph advantage.

First of all, I thought I would be arguing for Japan, but I suppose one must make due. I will rebut your points separately.

Japan's government may not have been full dictator, but It instilled an ideology obsolete by hundreds of years : Bushido.
Basically it is an ideology forcing one to completely serve his daimyo, or superior. People would be executed for being "Enemies of the emperor", or "traitors to the daimyo'. This is the same as the fascist countries way of dealing with the public, though not as subtly. Overall this specific platform depends on the demographics you'r trying to appeal to.

I believe that during the 30's, a young hitler in jail would write a book titled "Mein Kampf", which translated means "My Struggle". He would use jews as a scapegoat to fuel a national hatred calling for vengeance against the allied countries that left the fatherland poor and financially desolate. You see, Hitler in fact was partially jewish, on his fathers side. He would eventually make Emil Maurice, the butcher of Nazi Germany, a supreme SA leader, the highest rank for the SA. Reinhard heydrich, head of the german secret police and one of the main architects responsible for the holocaust, was rumoured Jewish. I say rumoured, because this one I can't confirm.

You make state that the German high command made some terrible decisions, so did the Japanese. Stalling a surrender that resulted in the horrendous loss of human life, mostly civilian. I rest my case and look forward to a response.


The British pilots were better and more experienced than the Nazi's, so it would be irrelevant to argue for a BF-109.

German tanks were not quicker, you stated that only one was quicker, and that specific one wasn't used much, as proven by your own arguments in round 3. Also, you seemed to have forgotten that prior to the battle, Rommel created perfect terrain at El Alamein by firing artillery which battered the sand in such a way.

There is nothing wrong wth Bushido. In fact, it is honourable. The Germans didn't exactly surrender straight away either, so you can't argue about innocent Japanese lies when your own totalitarian leader refused to surrender, leading to the battle of Berlin.

Back to North Africa, how are superiority and quality different? The more quality in terms of men and tanks, the more superiority you have. Simple.

Going to Jewish Nazi officials, Hitler and Heydrich were part of a group for the Final Solution. This would lead to over 6 million Jews being killed. So what if Hitler and Heydrich were Jewish? If I'm a murderer and I kill a murderer, am I free of my sins? Hell naw! So why should Hitler and Heydrich be forgiven for killing their own kind?
Debate Round No. 4


Sorry man, I already rebutted the British pilot's superiority of german ones, you can't just say that their better, and why would it be irrelevant to argue for the BF-109? Depending on the model stage, both planes had their ups and downs.

I was not saying that the German tanks were quicker, only that the allied tanks did not run tracks around the german ones. And mounds of sound around El Alamein were battered by artillery? I haven't heard of that one. Sources please, and not wikipedia.

Yes, there is something wrong with Bushido. It was reinvented in the 30's, and remember, it had existed since around 1200 years, so it had changed from when It was first coined after a book titled "Kojiki", Japan's oldest extant book was published. The talks about many thing, about myths and folklore, government and emperors. But it eventually talks about the feats of great warriors, and their morals. This is probably where the concept of Buddhism came from, but their isn't solid evidence. So, what I'm trying to say is that Bushido was bad back in the middle ages, when you had to serve your master to the death, and back to the 30's, when you had to serve Japan to the death. Hitler didn't surrender because he had plans, with the Battle of the Bulge, he would split the american and british joint armies in half, severing their supply routes and leaving them without a plan. However, this failed, and he lost the remaining amount of will and manpower left to push back the tides of the war. He knew that the Soviet's would've got him, he had know defences to counter the Soviet's ability to absorb casualties like a sponge.

Here is the definition of both words you don't know.

Quality, the standard of something measured against other things of similar kind.
Superiority, the state of being Superior. Webster's online dictionary.

So as you can see, they are, in fact completely different. The germans had obvious armour superiority, most if not all tanks had 75mm guns or above, exceptions would be the obsolete Panzer 1-3. They had enough oil to keep the tanks running, but the big retreat through North Africa left tanks and guns everywhere! The pictures of all the supplies the germans could not operate are incredible! Anyways, one could argue german and allied tank engine superiority, but
Actual armour superiority goes to the german tanks, name one allied tank in North Africa that could easily deflect 75mm blow, and that's armour alone, no angles or deflection shooting or nothing! And besides the Churchill please. In 1944, the germans began implementing sloped armour onto their tanks, but the North African campaign was long over, so anyways, German tank crew superiority could be argued, and allied tanks had the definite speed advantage.

Now, as a tank commander for either sides, which kind of tank would you prefer to operate? A German tank with superior armour and a superior gun, or an allied tank that's faster? Remember, the M4 Sherman's Main 75mm M2-M3 gun lacked muzzle velocity, and that's why the allies kept up gunning it, because it's anti-tank performance was terrible.The most successful model probably being the Sherman Firefly, it implemented the 76.2 mm 17 pounder gun, slightly evening the odds.

Now, towards the Jews killing Jews thing, as I said, Hitler used the Jews a\s a scapegoat, and the final solution was just to solidfy the ideology of Nazism. Besides anti-semitism, what principles consist of Nazism? I don't want to research it, because I get all depressed when I read about mass killings and stuff. And I wasn't saying to forgive Hitler and Heydrich, where'd you get that notion from? They were terrible people. And I suppose having your nation fight to the death for no reason isn't mass murder? Hideki Tojo and his totalitarian society was no worse then Hitler's. They subtly sent men to their deaths, and Hitler directly sent people to their deaths, and mass murder doesn't completely dictate the worse leader,Hitler's charisma won him germany, and his military finesse in the beginning stages of the war were unmatched, until he went crazy at the end. Hideki Tojo was terrible at running his government, he was born into the rule, so he wasn't elected because of ability. When the Potsdam declaration was issued to the Japanese government through leaflets and mass radio broadcasts, it was flatly refused by the Japanese military high command. They showed complete disregard for the welfare of the people, and in turn, so happened the 2 atomic bombings. Both governments were't exactly humane.

Sources, American wartime museum, Japanese war memorial, WW2 resources


First off, the terrain of El Alamein is explained in a season 5 episode of Battlefield named the Battle Of El Alamein. I apologise for not stating this.

Second of all, what other principles apply to Nazism? Are you serious?
1. The dispatching of any people that aren't 100% devoted to the state.
2. The reliance on military strength to build the economy; even communism doesn't stoop to that level!

I don't care about Hitler's "military finesse" because you know what? He beat countries like Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and France. Weak and vulnerable countries. In truth, Hitler never had the ability to cope with the British Empire and Soviet Union.

Fighting to the death isn't mass murder: it's for loyalty. Tokyo surrendered before being invaded, while Berlin was pounded into submission, so don't talk about Bushido.

Back to the tanks, you seem to be forgetting that the Germans producers focused on armour at the front of the tank. So shooting the tank on the side or back will heavily damage it.

I will not be arguing supplies being low, as you have admitted the little battle of supplies above. Even if the German's had anything, it was nothing compared to Britain's supplies.

The German tanks couldn't take any such hits either, as they were focused on the main turret and front armour. So a strike in the back would've destroyed a German tank.

So I have countered Pro's arguments and provided points of my own.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 7 years ago
BTW, topic is: Imperialist Japan is better than Nazi Germany/ Fascist Italy. As Con, I am Imperialist Japan, Pro the fascist countries.
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 7 years ago
Why are you holding thine grudge on a good natured man?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.