Was the USSR necessary to win WW2 - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Was the USSR necessary to win WW2
in History

By cheesycheesecheesycheese 79 Pts edited October 2018
Was the USSR necessary to beat Germany



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • I believe that without the manpower from soviet russia then the war would have been lost
    Polaris95Zombieguy1987
  • Hard to say. Without USSR, Germany would sweep through Europe, Africa and the Middle East. On the other hand, Japan was pushing from the other side, having every ounce as much imperial ambition as Germany. I believe that in the end Germany and Japan would clash in a war for Eurasian supremacy, and after that, again, the US and other European nations would come over and defeat the two nations weakened by a mutual war.

    This scenario needs some elaboration. What does the USSR do? Passively observe the world without any involvement? Wait for other nations to be worn down by a war to then come over and take out the weakened opponents? Not exist at all? 

    Assuming Germany never attacked USSR and instead focused on its western front, I would expect USSR to perform a strike of its own not too far after it was attacked by Germany in the real world timeline. I do not see how those two nations could avoid fighting at some point. There can be either one or zero expansionist dominant empires in the world. All other scenarios lead to wars lasting until either one empire survives, or all empires collapse.
    cheesycheeseZombieguy1987
  • If Russia remained neutral, I believe Hitler would have won WW2. He was winning on the western front, Japan had taken the US by surprise and weakened its navy. The allies were in a bad position. But Hitler was impulsive, and decided to attack the Soviets, which was a tactical error in every imaginable way. Firstly, the two nations already had signed a peace treaty between them, so he USSR was not their enemy yet. Second, this would divide the German attack into 2 powerful fronts, which would mean they wouldn't be able to finish Britain off as easily, and it would mean they had to conquer all of the USSR. Divide and Conquer only works against weak enemies, and Britain and Russia aren't. Then of course, the Germans had the US to deal with, which meant three large powers all working against Germany. In short, attacking the Soviet Union was the turning point in the war, and led to Hitler's downfall.
    cheesycheeseZombieguy1987
  • While The U.S.S.R involvement would lead to Germany falling (8 of every 10 deaths were on the Eastern Front) I don't think without their involvement WW2 wouldn't have ended. 

    The U.S, by the time the Soviets were pushing back the Germans ~1942-43, was creating the A-Bomb, and since their policy was to focus on the Germans ahead of Japan, cities like Berlin and Hamburg would've been nuked first. While it is unsure this would lead to the Germans surrendering instantly, it would lead to troops being unwilling to fight, and Hitler would become unpopular since the Allies now have this mega bomb that can wipe out entire cities and it is likely Germany would fall into civil war and die.
  • Polaris95 said:
    If Russia remained neutral, I believe Hitler would have won WW2. He was winning on the western front, Japan had taken the US by surprise and weakened its navy. The allies were in a bad position. But Hitler was impulsive, and decided to attack the Soviets, which was a tactical error in every imaginable way. 

    While invading the Soviet Union would change the tide, If Hitler hadn't invaded, he still would've lost. 

    Why? The Atomic Bomb

    According to Hitler, Nuclear science is Jewish Science, so the "nuclear race" between the U.S and Nazi Germany wasn't a race at all. So in 1945, when the U.S has the bomb, they have this weapon, that Hitler claimed was Jewish, and many of his followers would turn on him when they realize, that the allies may not be able to invade Germany, but they can nuke them into submission.

    Firstly, the two nations already had signed a peace treaty between them, so he USSR was not their enemy yet.

    Actually, Stalin was also considering invading Germany. So, while invading the U.S.S.R was a bad idea, it was either Hitler or Stalin starting World War 3 (If WW2 ended that is)

     Second, this would divide the German attack into 2 powerful fronts, which would mean they wouldn't be able to finish Britain off as easily, and it would mean they had to conquer all of the USSR. 

    They already were in two fronts. Western Europe and Africa. It just without the Soviets, the communist threat wouldn't be a thing (yet)

    Divide and Conquer only works against weak enemies, and Britain and Russia aren't. Then of course, the Germans had the US to deal with, which meant three large powers all working against Germany. In short, attacking the Soviet Union was the turning point in the war, and led to Hitler's downfall.


  • This question makes it seem like the allies used the USSR, or we had to rely on them somehow. The USSR was attacked by the Germans and really had no choice in their participation in the war. No matter what the Germans tried, they could not get air superiority over England. They couldn't starve them out, and eventually they became frustrated with the situation. They grew restless with their inability to bring England to their knees, and they moved on to attack Russia which needlessly opened up a second front for the Germans (Not to underscore the heartbreaking human death toll this caused). The Germans couldn't sink the English, and they couldn't overpower the Russians. The Germans were doomed from the start. There were missteps that were made by the allied countries which caused the war to drag on longer, but Germanies defeat was inevitable. Someone on this thread pointed out that Germany had no ambitions to build a nuclear weapon, which is true. hitler considered any technological advances that couldn't be developed and in functioning order within 6 months, a waste of time. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • I would say so. Given the fact that they were the only country on the eastern part of Eurasia that could have stood up to Hitler. 
    "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking...is freedom."-Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "It is not strange...to mistake change for progress."-Millard Fillmore

    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-Ayn Rand

    "To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."-Barry Goldwater


  • The USSR certainly contributed to the defeat of Germany. Because of them, Hitler divided his army so as to fight on two fronts. As a result, Germany couldn't focus on Western Europe and other countries, and wasted great portion of their army on Eastern front. The fight between the USSR and Germany caused massive loss of experienced German soldiers and consequently weakened the power of Germany. However, I don't think that the USSR was absolutely necessary. Even before the USSR entered the war, Germany was not successful in overpowering the Allies. They got constantly defeated by British airforce and made some terrible mistakes(one of them is not attacking Dunkirk). In addition, their allies were not that useful: Italy was asking for Germany's help and Japan was too far away to help Germany. Most importantly, Germany didn't have enough resource to carry out a long war. While the Allies were getting huge amount of resources from the U.S, Germany were running out of resources. Germany wouldn't have won WW2 even if the USSR didn't enter the war.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch