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

The Nazis could have won WWII if they didn't invade Russia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,598 times Debate No: 56111
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I believe that the Nazis would have won the war if they had not invaded Russia. I ask that Con makes his arguments R1, then at R2 I will defend, and at R2 con will say, "Skip just as we planned", then I will argue at R3. Con defends R3.


They could not have won, there are numerous reasons why;
1. They had too many enemies
Nearing the end they would have lost even if they DIDNT invade Russia, Hitler already invaded Paris and Denmark, so everyone else knew the threat and would have eliminated it.
2. They didn't have the army
All the Germans had were Austria, Japan, and Mussolini as allies so their soldiers were VERY limited. It was basically them against the world.
3. They are landlocked
If they wanted to invade the US or any other country out of Europe they would have to cross half the world to get to them because they were land locked.
Debate Round No. 1


1. "They had too many enemies."
[1] They had lots of enemies, of course, but they also had lots of allies. Japan, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Thailand, Bulgaria, Finland, Iraq (supplies), Albania, Slovakia, Croatia, and all of eastern Asia basically. Russia was the strongest ally force. They had about 2.9 million people in the Red Army. Maybe they could have attacked Germany, it is a possibility. But, is it also possible that Japan could have attacked Russia?
2. "All the Germans had were Austria, Japan, and Mussolini as allies."
Wrong. They had more allies, look at the list I gave you. They had way more allies.
"Their soldiers were VERY limited."
The Nazi's were, but their allies were not. [2] Japan had a total of about 2 million ELITE soldiers. The US just kept throwing bodies at the Nazis, untrained bodies. If they hadn't attacked Russia, Japan would assist in the war on the US. Not to mention that Austria, Hungary, and Mussolini had a combined strength of 2 million as well.
3. "They are landlocked."
They are not. They conquered Denmark, which has access to the North Sea. If they took over the UK too they would be free to invade the US. [3]






CrazyChilean forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


The Nazis had a lot of ways to win if they didn't invade Russia.

1. They could have focused the Middle East and Africa.
[1] They had a total of 4 million troops, including allies. With this amount, they could have just focused on the Middle East and Africa, which they could take over easily.

2. They could've also taken over the United Kingdom.
[2] The US and UK had only about 3 million troops compared to the Nazis 4 million. It would be hard, but it could work.

3. After taking over these, they could focus on Russia.
With all the troops and land captured, they could then focus on Russia.

With all of these captured, they would then take over, and win WWII. They might have even invaded India and the United States later.


[1] -

[2] -


CrazyChilean forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Uh-Ha 7 years ago
I do not think people on this site are knowledgable enough about the causes, effects, and alternations of WW2. I come from a World war 2 chat site where this argument has been shot down in screaming flames by our more studious members many many times. The short facts are that Germany simply did not have the resources, either human or material, to prosecute a long war. Their allies were weak militarily, or socially inept, or just plain pig-headed. Their largest military ally, Japan, was too distant for combined operations, and too resource weak for a long war. The Italians, whilst gallant at sea and in the air, had spent much of their military money shoring up Francos revolution in Spain, and had no money or oil to do much of anything, militarily speaking.

I could write a whole lot more, but my words would be wasted. You people are not into military history as we are; i used to play proper startegy board games before the coming of the computer turned it into an arcade amusment. I've GAMED the Russian campaign several hundred times, and the chances of a German win are lower than a pregnant snakes belly. And the Japanese, taking on the largest industrial pwer on earth with 90% of their military resources already bogged down in China, AND with only just under 2 million tons of crude oil to refine for use of the entire nation. Both these powers had to win incredibly quickly or not at all, and both went down with much suffering on the home front.
Posted by Martley 7 years ago
The whole point of WW2 was hitlers expansion east and his ideological war against Judeo bolshevism. It's the largest military invasion in history... If it's not for the invasion of Russia, then your denying the complete reason of hitlers aggression.
Posted by Charliemouse 7 years ago
I would love to accept but I think the chances of me winning are slimmer simply because generally people would agree with pro and not see my side of the argument as clearly. its like winning a debate against gay rights. but on a side note, Hitler signed a contract with the western countries of Europe and also with America which meant that Russia was left exposed. also he wanted to conquer Russia because the invaders had failed to in WW1
Posted by QuisUtDeus 7 years ago
I would be surprised if anyone accepted this debate. Only reason why Hitler lost is because he invaded Russia, so this argument is extremely one sided. Furthermore, if Hitler didn't invade Russia, Berlin would've been nuked by the U.S. Good luck finding a person ignorant or intelligent enough to actually accept this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by revic 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeiture

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