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

Nazi Germany could have won

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: 4/15/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,028 times Debate No: 52523
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Had Nazi Germany not attacked the Soviet Union, they would have saved invaluable resources and weaponry that could've been used during the battle of Britain and the campaigns in North Africa, they would have also avoided the distinct disadvantage of fighting on two fronts, especially against the stubborn tenacity of the big red industrial machine.


I, as Con, accept Pro's challenge and state the following:

World War 2 would've been lost had the Nazis not invaded the Soviet Union anyway.

Stalin had said, while Hitler was planning Barbarossa, that the Soviets would try and delay the Eastern Front for two years.
This means that Stalin was delaying the Eastern Front for one of two reasons:
1. Preparation of defence, proving Hitler was planning on invasion from the outset of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact.
2. Planning to invade Germany, using propaganda as cover to expand his Soviet empire.

Also, the Japanese had, by the time of the Battle of Moscow, been ready to attack the USA.
This attack, and thus Hitler's declaration of war, mean that Americans could've easily landed in the West of North Africa, helped Britain sweep North Africa clear of Rommel and ended the war earlier in Italy, then a cross-channel invasion of Occupied France.

Stalin also ignored the supposed readying of Nazi troops pre-Barbarossa for two reasons:
1. His troops were ill-equipped for the battle (they lost 125,000 men in their battle for Finland)
2. He was offering Hitler a chance to call off the invasion, thus stopping his hating of war on two fronts and continuation of the Nazi-Societ non-aggression pact.

Hitler also, wrongingly, deluded himself that one front, the Western/British front, had been won. So attacking Russia wasn't the worst idea.
Debate Round No. 1


Let's talk casualties and allocation here. 4 out of 5 German soldiers died on the eastern front, and just think about the countless tanks and aircraft as well. If Hitler had not attacked the Soviet Union, the sheer amount of manpower he could have allocated through out Europe would have been overwhelming, and also they would be relatively well trained.

It wasn't until 1943 that the airborne landings occurred during operation market garden, and the Americans would have taken tremendous casualties, because the Germans would have had more time to dig in and fortify anti-aircraft positions. The campaigns in north Africa would not have been lost had the Germans gained the allocated tanks from the eastern front, and remember, the quality and attributes of German armour were superior to that of the mainly British counterparts. And let's not forgot the "desert fox". With his expertise the extra tanks would have been invaluable in all operations. Let's face it, would you like to be on the business end of a panther? Or a tiger? Or a hetzer? No, of course not, especially remembering you would be in a cruiser tank or a Matilda. So yeah, the German armour was superior in virtually all ways.

Anyways, let's be hypothetical and say that with the extra aircraft from the eastern front, the Germans had won the battle of Britain, game over for the allies. Now once the Soviets had invaded germany, they would meet superior soldiers and vehicles, a dug in defence, and the tenacity of a cornered raccoon. Why can I hypothosize this? Because Hitler would have anticipated it and planned a counterattack. Although it is speculated that Hitler suffered from schizophrenia along with drug and metal poisoning, he was a military genius and anyone who say otherwise must be incredibly prejudiced or Jewish. The allied war machine won ww2 only because it could sustain and replace massive casualties and mass produce like there was no tomorrow.


I would like to point out two things about Con's argument:
1. He has made assumptions, with no sources used, so we don't know how many resources the Nazis lost due to Barbarossa.
2. Overrating the "Superior" German forces, such as when Con said how if the Soviets would have invaded Germany, they would've been smashed.

There's no evidence, also, to suggest that Britain would have lost: Goering had lost once already, the British used radar, a fact the Germans never realised. The convoys were supplying Britain enough and the RAF pilots were much braver and experienced than the Luftwaffe's.

Montgomery flails Rommel, the Churchills are WELL better than the Panzers, I to IV. The Tigers were mostly on the Eastern Front, and Panthers and Elefant tanks were also the same: Eastern Front material.

The British Empire and North America were supplying them with materials, whereas Germany had two useless allies who were all doing their own things to expand their empires. The Allies worked together; the Axis also did, but they worked for their respective goals. The Allies worked for one goal: world peace. The Adis were too selfish, which is one of the reasons why they didn't win.

You said the Americans suffered heavy casualties. Would anyone outside of this debate, observing, notice the differences between casualties? By June 1944, the Americans had 11 million men mobilized. The Germans, however, could not simply replace lost soldiers, so much that by December 1944 Hitler Youth troops began entering battles. America had advantages: no one could bomb them, their country was miles away. Germany, on the other hand, was bombed into submission. No country could've survived such bombings and still won a war, unless you were Britain.

Hitler also underestimated North Africa; they failed to realize that the importance of the continent's result would've determined the war: The Americans would've arrived from the west, the British Commonwealth from the east, and ended up in Tunis. Tunisia is not exactly a country mile from Italy, and the Germans failed to realise this until they lost Sicily.

Overall, my opponent has offered no sources, cancelling his own points, while I have been offering tonnes of relevant points.
Debate Round No. 2


Where the blazes do I begin? First of all, you so eloquently say, and I quote " he has made assumptions with no sources used, so we don't know how many resources the Nazis lost due to Barborossa. You my friend, are a hypocrite. You state that much of the superior german tanks were engaged in combat on the eastern front. Sources please? And not Wikipedia. Sure, much armour was allocated to the eastern front for the beginning blitzkrieg, but after that tanks began to be diverted around Europe, and north Africa. But your most ludicrous statement is you claiming that the majority of German armour in north Africa consisted of obsolete panzer 1,2,3 tanks. They were developed in the 30's when Germany was re-arming, and when tank superiority was a unimportant priority. You comparing the Heavy Churchill tank to some obsolete light tanks, is like me comparing a 5 star French restaurant to some greasy american diner, and calling the diner "superior". Rommel had under his command panthers, tigers, panzer Iv's, which in fact are much better then you give them credit for, and much anti-tank guns, including the famed 88mm flak gun. My sources? British intelligence during ww2, encyclopaedia of ww2, and the times atlas of ww2.

You claim a multitude of "researched" and "relevant ideas" when It comes to your view of the luftwaffe. During the Battle of Britain, you claim that the British airmen were much more braver and experienced. three words for you, NO PRIOR EXPERIENCE. Besides a few campaigns in North Africa, British airmen did close to jack squat over the Europe, The only exception being the bombers who had priority objectives over France. So, in spite of this, you claim that the British airmen were "braver". How? given no prior experience. training only prepares you for so much.

You were completely correct, stating that Italy only priority's were border expansion. If you look at Italian campaigns, they were badly thought out, and ill-coordinated. You can assume that most were failures. But what you say about Japan's involvement during ww2 makes me facepalm. From 1939 to 1942, the Japanese were figuratively handing the Americans their asses on silver platters. You will make the assumption that I am not well versed, so I will explain early war Japanese supremacy. Many of the islands under american and British control, were captured quickly and effectively, until 1942 however when the battle of Midway tipped the scales in the Americans favour. In short, the Japanese lost Naval and air superiority. But Even then, the Japanese fought to the death on every island, regardless of weather, regardless of if they had weapons or not, regardless of sure annihilation. The Japanese government revolutionized Japan in the 20's, by bringing back the principles of Bushido. You fight for the emperor, or be disgraced and disgrace your family. The tenacity of the Japanese during ww2 is comparable to the Spartans last stand during the Battle of Thermoplyae.

Wow, I am sure a windbag. I commend you If you've read through all of this ranting, and I'm looking forward to your response.


I have read Pro's argument, and would like to know this:
1. How would I have known his sources, given he had not stated them?
2. Why are you thinking so high of the Japanese?
3. How were the British pilots not experienced?

Pro has stated some outrageous things, especially the Japanese style of warfare.

Pro has stated that the Japanese tenacity was like the Spartans' last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae. I would like to state that the very height of the Japanese military were fearing even prior to Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese Navy Admiral, Isokoru Yamamoto, said to his generals, "Gentlemen, we have just kicked a rabid dog". The Japanese, from then on, fought from fear. Yamamoto had spied on America first-hand, and had even tried to dissuade the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The American war industry created 131 aircraft carriers throughout the war, vital to any naval battle, for it provided itself air support. And the Japanese? 17. Now, if those 17 carriers, even with their Zeros and kamikaze skills, had fought the Americans, I highly doubt the Japanese could've sunk more than 10.

Back to RAF pilots, you seem to be forgetting that most pilots from World War 1 were 39-42 by the time World War 2 had started, still an acceptable age for pilots. Most of those 20 years, they were called back to their bases to practise the new planes, much better than the Wright-brother style planes of the 1910's.

You seem to be forgetting the planes themselves. The Spitfires were much better than the BF-109's. On top of that, if the Germans could reach England, they could only stay for 3-5 minutes. If they were shot down, they would be forced to surrender: RAF pilots could've hopped into another plane the same day and return fire. The British also had radar, so they could know where the Germans were. Those advantages, as seen in the summer of 1940 itself, are enough to prove the British would've held on.

German military strength was cut to pieces by the Treaty of Versailles, so the experienced pilots of Germany were forced to resign the German Luftwaffe of WW1, or face the consequences. So the German's only experience were Poland (hardly an experience giving country) France (of whom surrendered almost immediately) and the countries of Central Europe. So... 9 months of German pilot experience vs... 26 years of British pilot experience. That's a good 25 year, 3 month difference.

You've helped my point for Italy, proving that it was a useless country. Now, add that to the abundance of countries that Germany had as allies that were also useless (Finland, Bulgaria, Romania) and it's basically the same thing: Germany with its small European empire, Britain with its worldly one.

Back to Japan, you claimed the Japanese fought bravely. For this argument, I would like to refer to one of George S Patton's famous quotes, "Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets". This can be used to counter arguments of "brave" (or rather stupid) German and Japanese fanatics.

As for North Africa, you seem to be underestimating British equipment: Heavy artillery batteries (which fired 7 hours straight in prelude to El Alamein battle 2) Churchill and Sherman tanks (both quicker and quieter than their German counterparts, which also outnumbered the Germans 25 to 1, including Flak 88's) and the massive amount of supplies from the Empire, including men (from Free France, Britain, South Africa, Australia, Indians and New Zealand) of whom were 1,000,000 to Germany and Italy's 300,000) and supplies such as oil, water and food. Rommel's tanks were excellent, no doubt. But you know your tanks are gonna be useless soon when you're stealing gasoline from your Italian allies.

All in all, all arguments have been countered. I wish Pro luck in the result of this and future arguments. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 7 years ago
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 7 years ago
@edibleshrapnel comment #1: *They're
Posted by edibleshrapnel 7 years ago
@Dynasty2468, History buffs are a stubborn lot, I take pride in my insolence! But as to your question over the correlation between the title and the argument, I shall create another debate, and maybe my opponent could explain how we got off topic! In other words, I don't know.
Posted by Dynasty2468 7 years ago
Why did they move from Invasion of Russia to Bombing of Britain to the Island Hopping. I thought they're suppose to argue whether Nazi could have won if they didn't attack Russia. Can we just move back to Russia?
Posted by edibleshrapnel 7 years ago
Ha, I wish I could counter your arguments, there still horrendously hypocritical and narrow-minded!
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 7 years ago
Thank you nato111, that's very kind. Yes, arguments as controversial as these are indeed awesome. I'd love to teach you.

I also ask that if you choose to comment, its important not to offer opinions, as this can lead to unfair advantages for ideas for arguments.

Thank you
Posted by anynomunis 7 years ago
The all mighty Soviet union could crush fascist Germany in a heartbeat. The soviets have thrown the French inperilat dictator Napoleon out. Soo it would be logical EVEN BEFORE the fascist Reich invaded the USSR. what the USSR failed to do after the war, was to keep Berlin to the soviets and quanqur them as the nazis did to them
Posted by nato1111 7 years ago
This is a awesome debate for con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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