Instigator / Pro
Points: 1

The odds of a German victory in WW2 were unfavourable in December of 1942

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Trent0405
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
2,310
Contender / Con
Points: 0
Description
You must hold the stance that Germanies odds were favourable.
BOP shared equally
Round 1
Published:
Troop Counts

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.


Oil

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.


Conclusion

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.







Published:
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
Round 2
Published:
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.
Published:
If things had been just a bit different and they could have been if hitler had invaded russia a few months earlier had spent a bit more on his a bomb they might have won itwas a very close call , they could have done it it came down to a tos of the dice quirks of fate we almost ost they alsmost won if you could put all the data in a computer model and replay it over and over its very likely if this or that had swung their way we would have lost https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-hitler-could-have-won-world-war-ii-getting-atomic-bomb-first-80811How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: Getting the Atomic Bomb First?The Challenges of U-235 Enrichment
Despite the continuing attacks on the heavy water supply line, by 1941 German scientists had come to several broad theoretical conclusions that mirrored American conceptions of how to build an atomic device: (1) an enriched uranium fission device, (2) a plutonium-based fission device, or (3) a “reactor bomb.” While the United States would build successful atomic reactors and both uranium and plutonium bombs by the end of the war, the German scientists never approached a working conception for actual production of a successful atomic machine.

.On the other hand, had Germany produced just a couple of atomic weapons before the end of the war, instead of the thousands of V-1 and V-2 rockets lobbed on Britain, the course of history would undoubtedly have been different. For reasons having little to do with morality or luck, we remain fortunate this alternate history did not come to pass.https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-hitler-could-have-won-world-war-ii-getting-atomic-bomb-first-80811?page=0%2C1https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-hitler-could-have-won-world-war-ii-getting-atomic-bomb-first-80811?page=0%2C1Hitler secretly made the weapons of the future during the Second World War
Hitler's Nazi engineers made technological developments which were innovative and far ahead of their time, manufacturing weapons such as sonic cannons, x-ray guns and land cruisers.
Round 3
Published:
if hitler had invaded russia a few months earlier had spent a bit more on his a bomb they might have won
Well were talking about 1942, so Germany has already invaded Russia making that half of your point irrelevant. Your source for your statement about a bomb doesn't assist your point, it says "by the spring of 1945, when America’s massive nuclear program was reaching its culmination, the Nazi atomic program consisted of one experimental reactor in a cave in southern Germany, operated by scientists who lacked a clear conception of how to build an atomic weapon." So Germany wasn't close to a nuke.

Rest of your argument

My point about Germany being unable to produce a nuke is untouched, he merely restates his point from last round, and his own source helps debunk his point.

Published:
Hitler if he had been convinced to retreat ant stalingrad or kursk if they had pulled back and regrouped instead of refusing to give ground they odds would have ben with them, stalingrad was a bigmistake if hitler had regrouped he might hav saved his army 
Added:
--> @Yours
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [yours] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: This voter is ineligible. In order for an account to be eligible to vote, they must first have read the rules and completed 2 non-forfeit, non-troll debate OR made 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
#27
Added:
Basic history knowledge. Hitler is doomed after he failed to make the Soviet Union capitulate and after he declared war on US. There is nothing Hitler could have done to prevent his eventual defeat. It is just like the situation with Poland, there is no way they could win
#26
Added:
if the germans had used their wonder weapons a bit earlier wed all speak german or be hiding in an attic
Contender
#25
Added:
--> @oromagi
lol it was accepted with 4 hours remaining, so close.
Instigator
#24
Added:
intercourse, at last
#23
Added:
--> @billbatard
1,580% is the actual oil production difference, this was a mathematical error on my part, I apologise.
Instigator
#22
Added:
--> @Exile
very sad you missed out, wouldn't mind debating this in the future with you.
Instigator
#21
Added:
--> @Trent0405
Damn I wish I saw this sooner, cuz I would have totally taken you up on this debate. Sorry bro.
#20
Added:
anybody?
Instigator
#19
Added:
Bump for competitors
Instigator
#18
Added:
--> @Trent0405
Remember, ISIS and the rebels used to work together before falling out
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2014/06/12/two-arab-countries-fall-apart
#17
Added:
--> @Trent0405
Its more stable
#16
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
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.
Instigator
#15
Added:
--> @Trent0405
ALOHA SNAKCBARS on the rebel sides
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg5UEz_Ao0g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jbNepN6kM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiyyWiO-IKY
Watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGEc-CMsrQs
#14
Added:
--> @Trent0405
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."
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2013/05/14/63221/the-structure-and-organization-of-the-syrian-opposition/
#13
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con makes a case that if things were vastly different Germany could have won (not even necessarily favorable odds), which is neat, but doesn't touch the resolution of the actual state of the war in 1942. Pro's case about troop counts, etc., is untouched. So based on the evidence, the odds were dis-favorable them to attain victory at that point.