Instigator / Pro
14
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Topic
#3063

THBT: The Third Reich lost WW2 because Hitler made bad wartime decisions

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Description

The focus will be on analysing history, not clever argumentation techniques. Unnecessary distractions like Kritiks and semantics are disallowed by rule.

Merriam-webster definitions:
-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.

-->
@Ehyeh

He's come a long way

Benjamin is the most slept on debater on this site. He has vs'd some of the most stacked opposition on the site, alongside undefeatable.

-->
@Benjamin

I think this was one of my favorite debates

-->
@whiteflame

Thank you for voting

-->
@whiteflame

Thank you for your vote

-->
@Sum1hugme
@Benjamin

RFD, Pt. 1

I tried to keep this brief, though brief for me is still pretty long for many.

I think it's important to have some clarity when it comes to what, exactly, Pro's burden is in this debate. Both sides try to define it, and in doing so, both sides apparently skew it unnecessarily. Pro claims that his burden is simply to show that Hitler contributed to the fall of the Third Reich, which doesn't really fit my reading of the resolution, as this resolution suggests a much more absolute scenario than a contribution would manage. Con more correctly orients it as placing Hitler as the predominant cause, though that swings a little more harshly than is necessary. It seems straightforward to me: Pro must prove that Hitler took actions that played a key role in the Third Reich losing the war. Other factors could contribute and perhaps even exceed him in importance, but his decisions have to have done more than just contribute. These have to be lynchpin factors, without which there was at least substantial uncertainty that the Third Reich would lose the war. Maybe this is just me imposing my views on the debate, but as there is no agreement with regards to the burdens and as those are not defined until the first round (where they are fair game to receive criticism from the opponent), I think the best alternative is to find a reasonable middle ground, one which I think best fits the topic you're debating.

However, that's only a start, and this leads me into the biggest problem with this debate: what would have happened in the absence of Hitler's decision-making during WWII? I feel like this question is left on the table throughout this debate. There's an underlying assumption to everything Pro says about Hitler and the decisions he makes that, if those decisions hadn't been made by him, something better would have happened. I don't know what those scenarios would look like. I think you need to play a bit with alternate history to make a debate like this work, and I don't see either side engaging in that, which is a pity. I'm left with a lot of questions, like what would have happened if Germany had not declared war on the US? I get some indication that there were alternate reasons for Germany to declare war from Con besides backing Japan, but nothing about how a shift in decision-making could have affected the war overall. What would have happened if Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union? Beyond that, in the absence of Hitler making these decisions, who would be making the decisions for the Third Reich? Why should I trust that they would win the war effort? I know this is all speculation and somewhat difficult to define, but so much of Pro's argument is predicated on the notion that you just take these decisions away and things go better for Germany. Even if we don't assume they make alternate choices and every decision is just nullified, I'm not so sure that you can assume everything from that point on plays out well for Germany.

RFD, Pt. 2

Essentially, I think what's missing from this debate, and what affects Con the most, is a basis for determining whether the Third Reich would have lost the war if you took these decisions out of the picture or replaced them with alternate choices. In the absence of that, what I have is some arguments about the training, capabilities and economic circumstances. What these all tell me is that there were other factors affecting whether the Third Reich could win the war at all, which is a start, but it's not enough by itself. I'm getting too much information about why the decisions of Hitler clearly did affect the Third Reich's status in meaningful ways, particularly in terms of splitting its efforts and increasing the strain on its resources. Con never tells me why these things weren't instrumental in their loss, just that there are other elements that likely did contribute to that loss as well. If I had a better picture of what the world looks like in the absence of these choices beyond the scope of a single battle like the Battle of Britain, this might have been more meaningful. If I acknowledge that losing the Battle of Britain was always guaranteed, it doesn't tell me that the Third Reich would have lost the war. If I acknowledge that they had financial and training difficulties, that gives me some inkling that they couldn't sustain the war effort and may lose some battles, but it doesn't tell me they will fail regardless of their leader's decisions. I need a look at the bigger picture, not just plausible weaknesses that could impact the outcome of the war. And yes, that requires playing with the theoretical, but it requires it of both sides. I don't think Pro could have gotten away from having to explain what fills the voids he's leaving behind by saying that these decisions shouldn't have been made. If there's reason to believe that Hitler's absence from the decision-making would have led to the same outcome because other people in the Third Reich's leadership also made bad decisions, that's pretty important to determining how this plays out.

But in the absence of that bigger picture, I'm forced to reckon with the fact that Hitler did a lot to stress his forces and take away any possible advantage they might have had. Would that have been enough by itself to wreck their war machine? Maybe not, but it satisfies as a lynchpin to me, and thus reason enough to vote Pro.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thank you for voting.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thank you for voting.

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

-->
@blamonkey
@whiteflame

Please consider voting.

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

-->
@fauxlaw

Thank you for your time.

I will read and vote on this debate

-->
@HistoryBuff
@fauxlaw

You guys like history. Please consider voting

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

-->
@Benjamin

No, it's a historical fact that France's best units were cut off because they committed them too far north since they falsley believed that no tank could cross the Ardennes.

Germany didn't beat the Soviet Union. Plus, the blitzkrieg wasn't a strategy that was like, formulated and then executed. It was a term that became plastered onto the early success of the rapid German victories over France and Poland. Poland was beaten so fast, not because the Germans were so amazing or whatever, but because they got pincered between the Germans and the soviets.

Also, radio communications were developed in the first world war.

-->
@Sum1hugme

It was the Blitzkrieg, a strategy of combined and coordinated efforts by all branches of the military using radio, that made Germany able to defeat Poland, France and later the Soviet Union --- and this strategy was created in Germany and no comparable winning strategy existed for any of its enemies. This strategy was only rendered ineffective once the eastern front halted and became prolonged. France did not even have effective radio communication at the start of the war, and their tactics were outdated, that's why they lost.

Vote bump

Vote bump

-->
@Benjamin

You're trying to overgeneralize. Their military was roughly on par with France's and they defeated France on a gamble. That's a historical fact. It's also a historical fact that they had early success in the invasion of the USSR. Capturing Moscow would not be a guarantee of victory and I never said Germany was weak, just that they had certain key disadvantages that culminated in their ultimate defeat.

-->
@Sum1hugme

So quick to change your mind. First the German army is weak and only defeated France by luck, but then suddenly its strong, to the point were invading the USSR is a good move. Make up your mind. Also,If you read my r1 argument, you would see that the reason Moscow was not taken was because Hitler halted the marching armies At a crucial point, giving the Soviets time to adapt and reinforce, and making it so that the war would last through the winter. Germany would have taken Moscow and probably won ww2 had Hitler not done this.

-->
@Benjamin

The Germans were actually very successful in the initial invasion, getting to within like 100km of Moscow. So it wasn't clear at the time that invasion was ultimately a mistake. We have hindsight 20/20, but at the time, it looks like a solid power move.

-->
@Benjamin

Yeah the Soviet Union MAY not have invaded germany, but economic sanctions were a very realistic weapon. Hitler's goals, aside from Soviet capitulation, were the rich oil and metal resources of the Ukraine and the Caucuses. That would make Germany resource independent. If they did get blackmailed by Stalin, they would've had to invade for the resources to fight the war anyways.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Nearly all of Germany's losses in ww2 were against the USSR. Sure, they weren't exactly accepting of each other, but the USSR surely would not have entered the war on the side of the capitalist allies had Hitler not decided to invade it. Moreover, attacking the USSR made the fear of loosing trade a self-fullfilling prophesy, and to not invade the soviet union would have made it far more unlikely for the trade sanctions to occur (given that war instantly destroys trade lines)

-->
@Benjamin

And they weren't actually allies. They toned down their anti-other rhetoric and created a non-aggression pact for the sake of a joint operation against Poland. But the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the fascists, and the Nazis wanted to destroy the Bolsheviks.

-->
@Benjamin

Nah, he attacked the USSR for ideological reasons, but also largely bc he feared economic blackmail by Joseph Stalin. One major reason they lost ww1 was because Germany wasn't resource independent. The joint annexation of Poland was to intentionally create a land border with the Soviet union so that Germany could trade directly with them. However, had Stalin placed sanctions on Germany, which is a very realistic possibility given German expansionism, Germany would've had to invade anyways.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Do you agree that Germany would have won wow had Hitler made wiser decissions- such as not attacking their ally USSR?0

Vote bump

Vote bump

-->
@Sum1hugme

Oh, my mistake. I meant to write "practically conceded", as it was the implication of your statement, not your statement itself, that concedes the resolution correct.

-->
@Sum1hugme

I know

-->
@Benjamin

Lol "technically conceded"? You're too much sometimes