The Instigator
ABC123TT
Pro (for)
The Contender
Joshfour
Con (against)

WW2 would not have been won without USA Involvement (official and unofficial)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ABC123TT has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/1/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 828 times Debate No: 116186
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

ABC123TT

Pro

People these days have been saying WW2 could have been won without US support or involvement. If you are one of these people get ready to debate
Joshfour

Con

First I'd like to say to my opponent, ABC123TT, that even though the U.S did help a lot in WW2, that they weren't the only reason that the Allies won WW2. And I'd like to tell my opponent what would happen if the U.S never got involved in WW2. Say, Japan never bombed Pearl Harbor. First, U.S would never go to war against Japan or Germany obviously. And if The U.S never went to war against Japan, Japan would probably instead invade Russia. Which they would probably lose against. And meanwhile, in Europe, Germany would still lose against Russia as U.S involvement didn't really affect this. Though something that would change is that without the U.S leading D-Day, the Allies wouldn't get as far into Nazi territory, they would still land in France eventually, but not with the amount of manpower they did if the U.S was in the war. But Germany would still be in trouble and probably lose against Russia. In the end, what would happen is that Russia would own probably all of Manchuria, Japan, most of Eastern Europe, Belgium, The Netherlands, and all of Germany. Which they would probably turn most of this into puppet states. But the Allies would probably still win WW2 in the end. AlternateHistoryHub talks a lot about this scenario in his video What if Japan Never Bombed Pearl Harbor? Which is where I got my information.
Debate Round No. 1
ABC123TT

Pro

First of all why would Japan attack Russia. What does it have to gain Japan attacked US to get fuel from the Philipines and to stop the Us from interfering. Japan had witnessed the might of the Soviets in the 1939 border clashes. But Japan had not seen the USA industry which is why it attacked it. You must also consider the unofficial support the US gave to the Uk and USSR in non rationed food Sherman tanks which won El Alamein, Catalinas to fight the u boats so they could get supplies from the US and other nations.
Joshfour

Con

Since the Germans would be invading from Europe, the Japanese would probably see it as an opportunity to invade an undefended Siberia to help out their allies. And about El Alamein, Catalinas, I don't think that the allies losing there would cause an Axis victory. Remember, Russia was a very powerful and tough foe for the Axis and they probably still would've invaded into Germany and capitulate it.
Debate Round No. 2
ABC123TT

Pro

There is no advantage in capturing Siberia. Even before it attacked US it was winning against UK
Joshfour

Con

Perhaps you didn't see what I said, after Germany does operation Barbossa, Japan would probably invade Russia from their border in the East to aid Germany.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 18 records.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
judaism
Russia didn't have to go to Africa, they didn't have interests there like Britain.
Posted by ABC123TT 3 years ago
ABC123TT
You relied on Sherman tanks El Alamein you depended on our Vatalinas to fight u-boats . Those food supplies from Argentina would not have made it if not for lend lease Catalinas. You also blew up St Nazaire with a lend lease ship
Posted by cameron2712 3 years ago
cameron2712
Hi, I'd be willing to talk about the war from a Western front perspective given that the US had a more important presence in the East which helped the British. I feel like the latter is definitely up for debate, considering the two most important turning points were the Germans' failure to win the Battle of Britain or Stalingrad.

We would have won, but with a lot more difficulty and reliance on countries like Argentina and Brazil who shipped in food, metal etc.
Posted by ABC123TT 3 years ago
ABC123TT
Russia and America were both vital keys to WW2
Posted by ABC123TT 3 years ago
ABC123TT
What about the Pacific. That is considered part of WW2 . What about Africa . Russians could not handle African heat being inhabitants of one of the coldest places in the world
Posted by ABC123TT 3 years ago
ABC123TT
Thank you though I believe this will be easy.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
judaism
Pro, I' debate you but I'm too busy right now. Everyone knows however that Russia perhaps played the MAIN PART in defeating Hitler. I'm not detracting from America though, but, without the Soviets, it would have been a harder fight for us here.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
Good luck to Pro.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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