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

WW2 could be won without America's help

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 3/19/2017 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,688 times Debate No: 101141
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I think the allies would win the 2nd world war without America's help, someone prove me wrong or get proven wrong

1) Acceptance
2) Rebuttals
3) Defense

1) Conduct
2) Try to use sources
3) No profanity or ad hominem
4) No forfeiting

No history topic? Really? Sorry if I've got the wrong one, let me know about that please


I accept this debate. I will be arguing that the Allied Powers could not have won World War Two without the aid and intervention of the United States.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for the acceptance

Ok, so let's begin this, I think the allies could beat the German forces with or without US intervention because they had almost the entire Europe against them. Yes, it would take longer but despite that, the allies would win. Although Germany had near-win situations, Germany already made a mistake of messing with Russia, then immediately they were done for, Russia was apparently unbeatable then.

Most of the heavy lifting against Germany during WW2 was done by the Soviets - 4 out of every 5 Germans killed in the war died on the Eastern Front, and the Soviets were well on their way to winning the war on their own before US aid arrived in meaningful quantities, and before the US dominated Western Allies landed in France in 1944. If the US and Western Allies had not landed in France, the war would have ended with the Red Army overrunning all of Europe.

Much ink is dedicated to the role of American Lend-Lease. It certainly helped, but it was not essential. It should be noted that Lend-Lease equipment did not begin arriving in large quantities in the USSR until late 1943. Indeed, the bulk of it did not reach the Soviets until 1944-1945. By then, the Soviets had some significant accomplishments under their belts and were well on their way to winning the war. Accomplishments owed to nobody else's assistance:

Beat back the Germans in the Battle of Moscow (December, 1941)
Won the Battle of Stalingrad (winter, 1942-1943)
Won the Battle of Kursk (July, 1943)
Liberated the Ukraine and reached the Balkans and Poland (winter, 1943-1944)
Destroyed the German Army Group Center in Operation Bagration before the US and Western Allies had broken out of the Normandy Beaches (June, 1944)
Kursk was the last German strategic offensive on the Eastern Front. From that point on, Germany was continually on the defensive and in a steady retreat that ended in Berlin 2 years later. And that point had been reached by the Soviets, largely on their own.

American Lend-Lease certainly helped speed up the Red Army's advance, and the second front in 1944 helped divert significant German forces away from the Eastern Front. But by 1943 and the Red Army's victory in the Battle of Kursk, the broad outline of the war had already been defined, and Germany was well on the way towards losing the war.

At the end of the day, 4 out of 5 Germans who died in the war died on the Eastern Front. Would that extra 5th German killed by the Western Allies have made a difference if thrown on the Eastern Front? It is possible, but certainly not inevitable. It is just as possible that he would have simply become additional grist for that insatiable mill.

It should also be noted that the USSR was not even a major recipient of Lend-Lease. the British got 3 times as much Lend-Lease as did the USSR, even though their contribution to winning the war was significantly smaller than that of the Soviets.


I) Introduction
II) Wartime Industry and the Lend-Lease Act
III) The Might of the US Military
IV) Sources

I) Introduction

I, con, will be arguing that World War Two could not have been an Allied victory without the aid of the United States of America.

The United States of America played a pivotal role in securing the Allied Forces' victory during World War Two through both supplying the Allies with weapons and its decisive victories which greatly weakened the Axis Powers.

II) Wartime Industry and the Lend-Lease Act

The Lend-Lease Act was legislation signed by President Roosevelt on March 11, 1941. It gave the US president the right to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of... any defense article... for the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States." This ultimately permitted the United States to provide weapons, machinery and transportation vehicles to the Allied Forces against the Axis Powers without directly declaring war on the Axis Powers.The United States spent over $40 billion to aid the Allied Forces [1].

During World War Two, both Allied and Axis powers were forced to manufacture an exceptional quantity of weapons and supplies for the war effort. In countries such as Great Britain, businesses, farms, and factories were converted to produce and manufacture resources and supplies. The expansion of munitions production required an increase in the production of machine tools, the output of which peaked in 1942 at nearly 100,000. This strain was eased by the import of machine tools from the United States, providing more than 33,000 in 1940. The new tools were used to increase munitions output dramatically [2].

The United States provided the Allies with thousands, if not millions, of supplies, guns, artillery, and transportation. For example, the United States provided nearly 1.02 million machine guns. We must also not ignore how America also provided aid and weaponry to European colonies. Colonies were vital to the war effort. Both Allied and Axis forces relied on them to supply them with food, labor, and other resources. Some French and British Colonies were even used to manufacture weaponry and tools for the Allied forces. It was important that the Allied colonies were to be protected. The Lend-Lease Act also provided aid to Allied colonies in areas such as Guatemala, Paraguay, and Nicaragua. They provided these colonies with guns, munitions, heavy artillery, light tanks and other combat vehicles [3].

III) The Might of the US Military

The United States military was a formidable force during World War Two. On the battlefield, America won many decisive victories which halted the German advance and virtually annihilated a great many Axis forces. The strong American military possessed over 11.6 million soldiers by 1944 [4]. equipped with the greatest navy in history, with over 6,000 ships. The United States produced more airplanes than all of the major war powers combined during the course of the war. While Germany, Japan, Italy and the Soviet Union could not successfully build a four-engine heavy bomber, America managed to produce 34,000 excellent B-17s, B-24s, and B-29s. At the same time, the U.S. supplied the Soviet Union with 400,000 heavy trucks, 2,000 locomotives, 11,000 railcars, and billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks, and other resources. By 1943-44, America also supplied around 20% of Britain's munitions [5].

The United States Military fought in a great deal of military engagements against the Axis powers. For example, the Battle of Midway, a naval battle between the U.S. and Japanese forces was a decisive victory for the Allied powers. The United States obliterated three of four of the Japanese Imperial Forces' aircraft carriers, which greatly crippled their navy and airforce. Another example is the Battle of Iwo Jima was a major battle between the United States and Japanese forces. The Japanese Imperial Army originally captured the island of Iwo Jima. The Japanese were positioned in a heavily fortified area with a dense network of bunkers, underground tunnels, and hidden artillery positions. This battle set the stage for America to collectively attack the Japanese forces, ultimately leading to the downfall of the Imperial Army. D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge were also great turning points in World War Two in which the Americans were involved in. On June 6, 1944, D-Day, or "Operation Overlord," was an enormous battle where around 300,000 Allied troops land on the beaches of Omaha, Utah, Sword, Juno, and Gold. D-Day helped to gain a toehold in Nazi-occupied France. Following D-Day, the Allies broke out of Normandy and advanced across France and Belgium. They closed down on the German army. By the end of the 41-day battle, Nazi forces surrendered and Hitler committed suicide [6].

IV) Sources

Debate Round No. 2


Replying to your introduction, yes the USA supplied weaponry to the allies, but if they didn't, this would not have prevented the loss of the allies, the Russians had the manpower, the Brits were able to hack into German radio frequencies, with a computer code named "colossus". The weapon supplying did not cause the win, rather it slowed the war down and ended it much quicker, each of the allies did their bit to defeat the Germans, because there were so many, this would result in a victory.

Like I replied to your introduction, the US did end the war much quicker by supplying $40,000,000 of weapons to the allies and eventually going in. But Russia was doing a ton of the work, Germany already lost as soon as they started the Battle of Stalingrad. America being involved was great but the best the USA brought was industrial might and the endless supply of weaponry, this shortened the war.

They can very much stop the war and win it, the American weapons also helped them absolutely destroy them and rid of Hitler's 3rd Reich and plan, but this is mainly focused on the war rather than Hitler's 3rd Reich.

On the one hand USSR, after a disastrous start against Germany, was able to:

Stop Werhmacht in Moscow battle, December 1941. With this victory, they knew they were going to survive.

Destroy Paulus"s army in Stalingrad (August 1942 - January 1943). With this victory, they realised they could counterpart the Germans.

In summer 1943, with the tremendous (although not very spectacular) defeat of the German army in Kursk, Russia was finally able to start the offensive - an offensive that only finished, two years later, within Berlin"s ruins.

With Russia's help, the Germans pretty much had it, and in the end surrendered.

Russian equipment include: PPSH SMG, warm winter clothes (so they don't freeze to death), trucks designed for sub zero temperatures and took down 80% of the Nazis

In reply to the might of US military, indeed the military was take down the Nazis.
WW2 without Russia would have most likely lost, even with America's help, Russian's power was extreme.
Britons could also get to German plans by hacking their radio frequency with colossus like I said before, they had brains.


My opponent argues that the Lend-Lease act supposedly was not very effective, explaining that the Russians had enough manpower, and the British managed to hack into German radio frequencies. He explains that Soviet Forces were capable of taking down the German forces. He provides three battles in which the Russians won against the Germans, and admits that one of those battles was not very significant.

My opponent has provided a fair amount of qualitative data and supposed “facts” such as “Russian equipment include: PPSH SMG, warm winter clothes (so they don't freeze to death), trucks designed for sub zero temperatures and took down 80% of the Nazis,” yet my opponent provides no sources supporting this data aside from his only source, Historium, an internet forum of random people discussing on whether or not WWII could have been won by the Allies without the Americans. This source is subject to fallacies and biased data, and therefore should not be accepted as true data.

Ultimately, my opponent argues that the Allies, especially the Russians, were capable of winning World War Two alone. However, this was clearly not the case according to history. During the Third Reich, Germany developed V1 and V2 rockets capable of devastating entire cities [1], the Machenpistol 40 (MP-40) capable of sending down deadly streams of fire towards enemies, machine guns capable of annihilating entire armies, and the German 88mm anti-tank cannon that devastated transportation vehicles and tanks [2]. The Wunderwaffe Programme was a German "wonder-weapon program" also produced significant weaponry that contributed to the crippling of the Allied forces. The Wunderwaffe Programme produced vehicles such as the FL-282 Kolibri, a helicopter that could swiftly transport supplies and drop bombs. The Wunderwaffe Programme also designed Ballistic Missile Subs, which played a crucial role in Submarine warfare and hampered the transportation of troops and supplies via water [3].

While the USSR might have been a force to be reckoned with, and while they may have possessed an extensive labor force capable of producing a large output of weapons and supplies, they would not be well-equipped enough to deal with the entirety of the Axis powers. If one assumes that the Russians could have won World War Two, you'd also assume that the Russians would be capable of traveling across Western Europe and bring enough supplies to replenish their soldiers. They would have to single-handedly liberate France. They would also expose themselves for more raids and attacks by other Axis forces because their forces would be stretched extremely long. One would also assume that the Russians had a way of bringing tanks and jets all across Western Europe, which, while possible, would be a strenuous and difficult task.

For the reasons I have provided, I strongly believe that World War Two could not have been won by the Allied without the support of the American Army.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: Thescarecrow066// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: I believe the con did a better job at explaining, not to mention they convinced me.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. Merely stating that one side was a better explainer is not sufficient.
Posted by Youngastronomer 3 years ago
Sorry if I went off topic slightly.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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