The odds of a German victory in WW2 were unfavourable in December of 1942
Waiting for contender's argument
The round will be automatically forfeited in:
Time for argument
Characters per argument
You must hold the stance that Germanies odds were favourable.
BOP shared equally
The Soviet Union from November the 1st 1942 to the 2nd of February 1943 had an average of 6,112,500 men on the Eastern front(including the small amounts of troops from other Comintern nations). Germany however in the same time frame averaged 3,250,000 troops(including other Axis powers) on the Eastern front.
Economy/Production and Natural Resources
The allies had a GDP of 97.7 billion dollars, but the Axis only had a GDP of 10.3 billion, a massive disparity. When it comes to the production of the weapons of war, the Allies produced more tanks/tank like vehicles(4.4 million-700 thousand), they produce more heavy guns(6.8 million-1.4 million), and more machine guns(5.2 million-1.4 million).
If we look at natural recourses the Allies produce 174% more coal, 15,800% more oil(not a typo), and 425% more aluminium.
Tanks/Tank like Machines
The Soviets average 8,070 armoured fighting vehicles from November 1942 to March 1943, but the Germans only average 2,754 armoured fighting vehicles on the Eastern front. This evidence may seem useless without loss ratios, but if you observe the loss ratios for armoured fighting vehicles on the Eastern front from November 1942 to March 1943 was only 1.3-1 in the favour of Germany, while Germany was outnumbered 2.93-1.
But what about tanks, sadly my source makes me total up the production of each class of tank/SPG for Russia in 1942, but if you do you find they produce 25,688 tanks/SPGs in1942 with Germany only producing 5,530 tanks/SPGs in 1942. If you look at tank loss ratios, you find it did favour Germany, but only from about 3-1 all the way down to less than 2-1, despite Russia outnumbering Germany by 4.65-1.
Germany, as early as 1941 was low on fuel and relied on horses to transport their troops as a result. Many say oil was the primary reason Germany lost the war.
I have proven the allies have a massive advantage as far as resources are concerned, and that Soviets are far more effective fighters.
I want my opponent to abstain from forfeiting, even if it means a rushed argument, if he forfeits I will waive to provide him with time.
If Hitelr had been convinnced to mass produce jets the mp 44 v 2 rockets even one year ealiers and invented a nuke which they wer eclose to they could have won
My opponents point is basically mass produce these weapons earlier. Well the V-2 rocket entered service in 1944, the MP 44 entered service in 1943, the first German jet plane was introduced in 1944, and many sources that show Germany came close to acquiring nukes have no evidence.
So it would've been impossible for Germany to produce/mass produce these weapons. The idea that they should've made these earlier is faulty. I think me and Con can agree that Germany would have loved to have those weapons in 1942, so if they didn't get those weapons in 1942 but they wanted them, they feasibly couldn't have gotten those weapons. This is equivalent to me saying "If America developed a nuke in 1942, the war would've ended way earlier." Well America would've liked a nuke in 1942, but they feasibly couldn't have gotten it unless they dumped way too many resources into the project.
Not published yet
Not published yet
Not published yet
if the germans had used their wonder weapons a bit earlier wed all speak german or be hiding in an attic
lol it was accepted with 4 hours remaining, so close.
intercourse, at last
1,580% is the actual oil production difference, this was a mathematical error on my part, I apologise.
very sad you missed out, wouldn't mind debating this in the future with you.
Damn I wish I saw this sooner, cuz I would have totally taken you up on this debate. Sorry bro.
Bump for competitors
Remember, ISIS and the rebels used to work together before falling out
Its more stable
You have changed my mind, wasn't aware of how atrocious the rebels were as well. Both are horrible though, but I'd rather Asaad stay in power than.
ALOHA SNAKCBARS on the rebel sides
The "rebels" consists of major terrorist groups including Al-queda in Syria
"The Nusra Front, also known as Jabhat al-Nusra, is an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group, comprising approximately 6,000 foreign and domestic fighters. The Nusra Front has reportedly been receiving significant funding, arms, and training from Al-Qaeda and the Al Qaeda-affiliated group, Islamic State of Iraq. Some of Nusra’s fighters are foreign jihadists, many of whom are veterans of the Iraqi insurgency; it is unclear, however, what percentage of the Nusra Front’s supporters are foreign fighters as opposed to Syrian nationals. The Nusra Front is a well-armed group that has claimed responsibility for multiple suicide bombings and asymmetric attacks against Assad-regime targets. The Nusra Front is also considered to be a fiercely sectarian Sunni group in violent opposition to Syria’s Alawite community—an ethnoreligious group of Shiite Muslims who comprise 12 percent of the Syrian population and the majority of the Assad regime."
oh, why would Assad be better for Syria? I'm not quite sure what the rebels might do if they get control, but Assad has done some horrible things.
Well I disagree with everything you said, go Assad!
No votes yet