THBT: The Third Reich lost WW2 because Hitler made bad wartime decisions
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 8 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
The focus will be on analysing history, not clever argumentation techniques. Unnecessary distractions like Kritiks and semantics are disallowed by rule.
-Good: effective in achieving the desired result (in our case, military victory)
-Bad: failing to reach an acceptable standard: POOR
The assumed goal is to win the war. A bad wartime decision is one that, contrary to good wartime decisions, fails to reach an acceptable standard of reason and rationale.
BoP is on PRO.
- TTR = The Third Reich = Nazi Germany
- Luftwaffe = the german airforce
- Wehrmacht = the german armed forces
- If CON denies this then he must explain another feasible way Germany loses that doesn't involve Hitler making bad decisions.
The Nazi dictator was not a military geniusThe successes of National Socialism in the 1930s put Hitler in command of the Third Reich, but HIS mistakes quickly turned the tide against Germany.
- Britain was not defeated as it should have been
- This made D-Day possible
- This made it possible for the allies to fight Italy in the Mediterranean
- This made it possible for the allies to bomb German infrastructure and factories
- This ensured America could provide supplies to the Soviet Union
- This meant a huge number of German troops and aircraft were locked down in the west and the north rather than fighting in the war
- The squadrons of the Luftwaffe was wasted and destroyed in pointless attacks on civilians
- Allied boost of morale as well as more incentive to fight
- OF COURSE HITLER CAUSED THE DEFEAT OF NAZI GERMANY
- Germany had the odds firmly stacked in its favour at the beginning of the war, and nothing except extreme incompetence could put Germany in such a bad position as 1945. Germany could only lose the war because of Hitler.
- Basic logic tells us that the result of wars are caused by first and foremost the leaders
- HITLERS BAD DECISIONS DIRECTLY CAUSED GERMANY TO LOSE THE WAR
- The war would have been a quick and decisive victory for Nazi Germany;
- Hitler's decision to change strategy meant that Germany actually lost the Battle of Britain; thus eventually causing the defeat of Germany
- Because of his arrogance, Hitler put Germany up against stronger and stronger enemies until he had removed any possibility of victory.
- Hitler insisted on leading the armies despite being a stupid fool whose strategies and decisions time and time again caused the German military to lose battles they would otherwise have won. He basically wasted every opportunity for victory, which there were countless of.
- Every bad strategical mistake that led to the defeat of The Third Reich was made by Hitler
- 14,000 airplanes
- 8,000 tractors
- 13,000 tanks
- 1.5 million blankets
- 15 million pairs of army boots
- 107,000 tons of cotton
- 2.7 million tons of petrol products
- 4.5 million tons of food ”
Japan defeating the US would be impossible in the long run. Even more importantly, The Third Reich had no way to attack the US, so a declaration of war would be nonsensical in every aspect -- you do not during WW2 declare war on the very nation that swayed WW1 into the enemies favour. Hitler's idiotic decision to declare war on the USA led to an allied boost of morale as well as completely destroy any remaining chance of German victory. American supplies, as well as American ships, aeroplanes and soldiers, swayed the tide of war. The invasion of Italy, as well as D-Day, was the last spike in the coffin for Nazi Germany. Thus, Hitler's decision directly caused the loss of The Third Reich by declaring war on the USA.
It was the qualitative superiority of the German infantry divisions and the number of their armoured divisions that made the difference in 1939. Tested and well-trained in maneuvers, the German panzer divisions constituted a force with no equal in Europe. The German Air Force, or Luftwaffe, was also the best force of its kind in 1939. It was a ground-cooperation force designed to support the Army, but its planes were superior to nearly all Allied types.The French and British armies were slow to introduce new weapons, methods, and doctrines. Consequently, in 1939 the British Army did not have a single armoured division, and the French tanks were distributed in small packets throughout the infantry divisions. The Germans, by contrast, began to develop large tank formations on an effective basis after their rearmament program began in 1935.The German Army, or Wehrmacht, because of its armament, training, doctrine, discipline, and fighting spirit, was the most efficient and effective fighting force for its size in the world.
After the fall of France in 1940, Adolf Hitler was so sure of the final German victory that he cancelled the majority of arms research programs, under the erroneous premise that the Third Reich had the weapons to win the Second World War. Two years later, with the Germans in serious trouble due to having to confront allied arms on all fronts, Hitler decided to restart the old arms research programs and development. The truth is that two years had been lost and, worse still, most of the best engineers had been killed by Russian soldiers. Despite everything, Nazi Germany managed to produce several impressive weapons. [history of yesterday]
Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Japan if a third country attacked Japan, but not if Japan attacked a third country. Ribbentrop reminded Hitler of this, and pointed out that to declare war against the US would add to the number of enemies Germany was fighting, but Hitler dismissed this concern as not being important ... The decision to declare war was made by Adolf Hitler, apparently offhand, almost without consultation. It has been referred to as Hitler's "most puzzling" decision of World War II...the prospect of a worldwide war fed Hitler's tendency towards grandiose thinking, and reinforced his feeling that he was a world-historical figure of destiny[ibid].
- Germany would have won the war early had Hitler not decided to switch strategy in the battle of Britain
- Germany would not have lost the war had Hitler not decided to attack the Soviet Union
- Hitlers decisions and general orders caused a lot of critical military losses in the war against the soviet union, and prevented a lot of easy victories
- Germany was very close to taking Moscow and defeating the Soviet Union when Hitler halted the invasion --- thus preventing a German victory
- Without Hitlers declaration of war against the US, the allied invasions of Greece, Italy and France would not have been possible
- Also, the Soviet Union would not have gotten necesary supplies
- Hitler, being the supreme leader, is of course the most influential factor in the defeat of his country
- Germany, dominating everyone in the early stages of the wars, and having nearly all of its major defeats caused by Hitlers bad decisions, it could not feasibly have lost in the abscence of said decisions. (I remember challenging CON specifically to deny this claim, which he did not do)
A car is fast because of its engine -- this is not a falsism...The word "because" does not mean that there is only a single cause.CON's claim that the resolution is a falsicism due to "only studying one cause among the strategic picture" is BS. This accusation falsely assumes that the resolution entails Hitlers bad decisions being the only reason for German defeat, which they obviously where not
However, your enemies having the necisities of warfare... and simply blame it on the country's economy.
It is a fact that countries have lost wars even when having all of those advantages, take the war of Vietnam as an example.
CON blaming the defeat of Nazi Germany not on idiotic leadership but simply small differences in resources means he really does not understand, or at least ignores, the fact of the matter --- that wars are won and lost by strategy, tactic, politics --- in other words: decisions!
Cambridge definition of PREDOMINANT: more noticeable or important, or larger in number, than others:As can be seen from this definition, CON is mistaken in his usage of the word "predominant"....Hitlers bad decisions were far more noticeable, important and numerous than some dubious and arbitrary factors CON claims caused the defeat of The Third Reich.
Moreover, the technological, numerical and strategical disadvantage of The Third Reich later in the world only came about as a long-term result of Hitlers decisions.
At the beginning of the war, Wehrmaght was indeed the best army in the world, it had the best equipment, training, tactics and weaponry.
They easily crushed all allied forced in Europe, and easilly invaded France and won a quick and decive victory that forced France to surrender.
Without this 2 year delay, thus without Hitlers decision to cancel research programs, The Third Reich would have continued having superior technology throughout the war. German technological inferiority was not an innate weakness of The Third Reich, rather it was a direct result of Hitlers decisions.
Remember that it was because of Hitler's delusion of a British surrender that the RAF had been given time to build up and modernize...Moreover, even after modernicing its airforce, the RAF was still in no way superior to the Luftwaffe.
The Spitfire only had a SITUATIONAL advantage, and even CON's source admits that in many cases the Messerschmitt had the advantage. The German strategy of diving into fights from above, which there was no countermeasure to, forced the RAF pilots to scatter.
Recall the fact that RAF was approximately 2 weeks away from being broken and torn down.
The battle of Britain was eventually going to succed, and thus the inevitable victory of The Third Reich was unavoidable from the allies's perspective.
Luftwaffe, the initially far-superior airforce, had been torn down in nonsensical attacks on civilians and could not allow for a German invasion.
Hitler had no sensible strategical reason to attack the US, and he willingly declared war without any obligation to do so and despite warnings from his ministers. So Germany had to fight the US not because of Hiroto, but because Hitler made bad decisions.
GERMAN ECONOMIC INFERIORITY...
The strategy changed in September 1940, after the RAF launched a retaliatory raid against Berlin. The strike sent Hitler into a fit of rage. He demanded they shift their focus toward “erasing” British cities from the map. While the bombings took a sobering toll on British civilians, they also temporarily relieved pressure on the RAF, allowing it to repair its crippled airfields and refresh its pilots. The respite proved critical --- Hitler’s decision to bomb London turned the battle in Britain’s favor. [history.com]
I never claimed that the resolution demanded that there was only a single cause
- Germany lost WW2 because they invaded the Soviet Union
- Germany didn't conquer the Soviet Union because Hitler made multiple bad strategical decisions at crucial points in the war
In my last round I showed that the German military was the most formiddable fighting force in the world. CON dares call this fact "baseless assertions". He ignores the fact that I directly quoted this article from Britannica in showing the absolute superiority of the German military in 1939, both in technology, tactics, equipment and training.
CON claims the German army received worse training than the armies of its enemies. He then sources a book called "A German Soldier's Memoir of the Eastern Front" in trying to prove this point. I can't help but notice how the soldier fought on the eastern front, not the western, which means that CON's source is malplaced.
CON claims that the Luftwaffe was inferior to RAF, because they were not prepared to attack Britain. While we can both agree that a single British airplane had feats that made dogfits easier, the fact is, that the Luftwaffe was a force without comparrison, and their impact as squads far outweighted that of British squads...defenders advantage...
It was indeed Hitler's bad decision to shift focus that made it possible for the RAF to recover and beat back Luftwaffe --- there can be no denial.
...by 1939 Germany had already created an empire that looked like this, consisting of Germany, Austria, Tsjekoslovakia and even western Poland. So in fact, Germany was in a realistic position to create an empire through military conquest, and it did so in 1939. Later the same year, the German military rolled into Europe and conquered Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg --- even France, all this in just a few months.
The only reason Germany lost the war was the introduction of new enemies, the Soviet Union and the USA. Hitler introduced these enemies by invading the Soviet Union despite their contemporary alliance, and later by declaring war on the USA with no strategical reason or diplomatic obligation to do so.
The major pillar of CON's argument is that the GDP of the allies was always twice as large as that of the axis. This is a major pillar, because only economics is an advantage the allied could have regardless of Hitlers decisions. But his argument, and his statement that "The allies GDP was always at least twice the size of the Axis" is litarally a lie...
Sure, other causes exist, like their armies and the armies of their enemies; but these individuals were so impactfull that they deserve being called THE REASON for their respective defeats and victories.
Nobody denies that without Hitler, the second world war as we know it would never have happened.
Since CON has already admitted that Hitler was a reason for German defeat, he has now conceded the debate. Since Hitler is at least A REASON for the defeat of Nazi Germany, and there can be multiple reasons, it is not wrong to say that The Third Reich lost WW2 because of Hitlers bad decisions.
A car crash is the fault of the driver. By CON's logic one would deny this fact and rather blame it on "the children inside the car talking to the driver, the GPS and the non-optimal breaks" as a more accurate description of the crash.