The Soviet Union Would Have Lost to Nazi Germany in WWII Without Marshal Zhukov

Once again. kind Regards to Pro for this Debate.I will be representing the Con side in the Debate 'The Soviet Union Would Have Lost to Nazi Germany in WWII Without Marshal Zhukov', meaning that I will argue that the Soviet Union would not have lost to Nazi Germany in WW2 without Marshal Georgy Zhukov.Opening Statement:It is no doubt that Marshal Georgy Zhukov had a grand part in the winning of the allied powers in WW2, fighting against the Japanese, as mentioned by Pro, as well as finally the taking of the Nazi capital, Berlin. There is also no doubt that Zhukov was a grand tactician. However, he did not play a grand part in the phase of the War in which the Soviet Union had the possibility to 'lose' against Nazi Germany. It is to mention, as Pro did, but blaming the 'fault' on Stalin, that Zhukov failed to fight back against the Nazi invasion. This however is not correct. Zhukov, as the Nazi Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union was unleashed, signed "Directive of Peoples' Commissariat of Defence No. 3", on the same day not to mention, as the invasion started, 22 of June 194, which ordered the counter-offensive by the Soviet Unions forces, the Red Army (Referred to as STAVKA by Pro)Zhukov made a manoeuvre to fight back the enemy, majorly through 'encirclement and destroy', however, this manoeuvre, even with Soviet superiority, failed miserably. Zhukov then claimed that he was forced to sign the document, however there is no evidence for this. He was demoted and sent to the Yelnya Offensive, the Leningrad Front and as stated by Pro to the defence of Moscow. However, this was not 'a seemingly impossible task'.Lets look at the data surrounding the Eastern front. Hitler made the fatal mistake of the 'Sommerpause', the Summer Break, in which he ceased efforts to take Moscow, up until Autumn when the effort was taken up again. A fatal mistake. This gave the Soviet forces time to reinforce and to prepare, had he not made this fatal mistake the Nazi forces most likely could have taken Moscow. It is also to note that the Eastern Front, the Front between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, was the largest military confrontation in history, and the Nazi forces were stretched thin, while Soviet forces had a numerical advantage and simply needed to mobilize. Moscow was not taken, and the Nazi forces basically lost, because there was not a great enough effort in the Blitzkrieg on the Eastern Front. Forces were stretched thin, and The Nazis tried to manoeuvre and conduct in Russian winter. Napoleon had made this mistake over 100 years prior and the Nazis repeated it. The Soviet forces were better equipped and more adaptable to the harsh Russian winter and thus it is not a surprise to see Soviet gain of ground during the 1941 Soviet Counter offensive. If we look at all these factors, one man, Zhukov, becomes quite irrelevant. Lets look at the ground gains made over the total Period of the Eastern Front conflict. This displays the initial 'Blitzkrieg', up until December 1941 when the Nazi forces were brought to a roaring halt by the winter. Here we have the Soviet Counter Offensive, while probably effected by Zhukov in one way or another, anyone could have planned this. Nazi forces were weakened and stretched thin. With the Soviet Troops at hand, this could have been done by nearly anyone. Also note that Resistance groups were rising up behind the Front and weakening the Nazi forces from there. The last major ground taking by the Nazi forces. Note that this was done because Hitler believed that he needed to take this region, as well as the futile and useless attempt to take Stalingrad. Once again, it is easy to see how thin Nazi forces were stretched, while Soviet forces were nearly twice the size, making it quite easy to fight the Nazi war efforts. This was not a task only achievable by Zhukov. As also provided by Pro, here we can see the first grand Soviet ground gains. Once again, the Nazi forces were stretched thin, especially if we look at the number of forces in the theater. About 2 million Nazi forces, vs over 6 million Soviets. More to this later, however, once again, Zhukov is unrelated. The final annihilation of the Nazi forces on the Eastern Front. Zhukov might have been part in these battles, however it was neither a fight against similar numbers, nor was it a fight against an organised army. Analysis of Troop Strength:In 1941 (Glantz, David, The Soviet-German War 1941-1945 (http://sti.clemson.edu... )) the Nazi forces are estimated to have had around 3 million troops in the Eastern Front theatre, while the Soviets had around 2.5 million in the theatre with around 5 million overall. With the threat of Invasion, realised by D-Day in 1944, Nazi forces were steadily shifted, in 1942 being a little less than 3 million vs now 5.3 million mobilized Soviet forces, 1943 around 2.5 million Nazi forces vs nearly 7 million Soviet forces, in 1944 slightly decreased numbers on both sides while in January of 1945 the numbers were around 1.4 million vs 6.5 million Soviets. This once again had no relation to Zhukov, but only to the overall situation in which Nazi Germany was in. Overall Situation:As per definition of the word 'lost', Nazi Germany would have had to take over the Soviet Union in order for the Soviets to lose. However, this was not even close to the case. Even if Moscow would have been taken, this would have not had a major effect on Soviet War development. The Soviet Union, at the height of its power, occupied an area of 22,402,200 km², while Nazi Germany's Third Reich only occupied 633,786 km² of fully held territory and 3,600,000 km² at its largest extend in 1942. This means that the Soviet Union effectively held an area 35 times larger than Nazi Germany and still over 6 times larger than the territory Nazi Germany held/occupied. What I am trying to demonstrate is that Nazi Germany was not able to hold this territory even effectively, how would they be able to hold an even larger territory? Their forces were stretched extremely thin as it was, thus meaning they would have been easily beaten (which they were), the Soviet Union also having more troops than Nazi Germany actually never being in real danger of 'losing' to them. Zhukov did not provide a great change to that, after all, when there is no real danger one cannot save one from it. Conclusion:The Nazis forces were stretched thin and they were increasingly under pressure by several Fronts and several countries, as well as resistance in their own occupied area. The Soviets always had a larger army than the Nazis and thus were not really presented with a grand problem nor the overwhelming possibility of 'losing', even if Moscow would have been taken. As well as all this, the fact that several grand mistakes on the side of the Germans were made, making their war efforts basically futile, the Soviets had little problem in beating the Nazi forces. This was by no means a task only achievable by Zhukov, but a task that would have been achieved even with Zhukov not present. Nazi Germany was up against a multitude of enemies, combined having a way grander strength than they had while desperately trying to protect their territory and stretching their troops out and as such not providing the resistance they could have provided with an intact, well rounded force. Zhukov may have had an impact of the magnitude of Nazi conquest in Soviet Territory, however, he did not achieve something that nobody else was incapable of achieving. The Nazis eliminated their Eastern Front War effort themselves, and not Zhukov. While he most certainly was very skilled, I have to stay firm to the statement that 'The Soviet Union wouldn't have lost to Nazi Germany without Marshal Georgy Zhukov' Pro seems to assume that my only argument can be the Lend Lease Act. While surely beneficial to the Soviets, this has little to none to do with the bigger picture, which is exactly what I am focusing on, while Pro seems to keep their focus more on the 'smaller issues', such as individual battles. These however, have nothing to do with the reason as to why Nazi Germany was not able to 'win' against the Soviet Union. If I look at the Eastern Front only, but fail to see what is going on in the West, there is a problem. Sources were the same as the ones used by Pro, others are indicated.Kind Regards, I am looking forward to your arguments.