Nazi Germany lost World War II because they invaded Russia.

Thank you, Con.Rebuttals:"Pro seems to be extremely convinced that the Nazi lost World war II because they betrayed ¨The Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact¨ or because they invaded Russia. However I do admit that it was in fact the dumbest move ever made in tactics, I do applaud Hitler for coming to his senses, because Hitler intended to dominate the world, in which he cannot accomplish because of Russia. Simply put Russia and the Nazi Germany eventually would fight against one another for world domination.dTherefore, I make the claim that the Nazi Germany did not lose World War II JUST because they did not follow their pact with Russia, but rather Nazy Germany lost World War II because they missed tons of winning opportunity."I don't think my opponent understands that they had a whole pact set up, just so they wouldn't get in the way of each other... although Hitler did intend to dominate the world, he could have had a better chance if not attacking them.."1. Many specialist believe that during the early-mid stages of World War II, a large amount of winning opportunities had opened up in the South of the Mediterranean shore. That Hitler should've ordered the capture of Cairo instead of attempting to capture Loundon. 2. Hitler's greatest mistake of the war (by many specialists) was that he was always so persistent of decimating the Soviet Union rather than following his objectives, which Hitler could've cleared by capitalizing on winning opportunities."The reason why he wanted to capitalize on London is because he wanted to end the war with Britain right then and there. He could have if he didn't attack the Soviet Union, he would not have to worry about two fronts."Back to my previous claim: Hitler did not capitalize on winning opptertunities. The fact that Hitler FOCUSED heavily on eliminating the Soviet Union (Russia) in a sense it was a smart idea, but Hitler didn't execute it correctly. However according pro's calculations the Nazi Germany had 10 million troops, but pro failed to specifically split how many, the USA and Britain had separately in troops. Therefore I will assume either both USA and Britain have 8 million troops or USA has more troops than Britain or vice-versa. Either way one side must have less troops than Nazi Germany. "Well, my opponent obviously did not look at my source, it shows the exact amount the USA AND Britain have... maybe I should show it to him. It clearly states in the graph that the USA had 12 million troops, and Britain had 4 million. [1] It was not a smart idea, it just added more to the total of the Allies... as stated before. "Tactics that Nazi Germany should've done to capitalize on winning opportunities was to separate Britain's Royal Navy from the Suez Canal within the Mediterranean sea. Therefore The Nazi from there could've simply taken Afganhistan and Iraq with much ease and ceasing the US's highly oil producers, which would force the US or an ally to to recapture them; then if the Nazi Germany were smart they would manipulate the anticipated raid."Thank you for backing up my argument. Instead of attacking the Soviet Union, that was one of my arguments, to focus on the Middle-East.ArgumentsFocusing on other opportunities:Con backed up my arguments, stating that "Therefore The Nazi from there could've simply taken Afganhistan and Iraq with much ease and ceasing the US's highly oil producers, which would force the US or an ally to to recapture them; then if the Nazi Germany were smart they would manipulate the anticipated raid." and "Once the Nazi Germany takes control of a highly valued producer for the US, then actions will be forced to be made." Exactly what I had in mind.If they had focused on other opportunities to weaken the USA and Britain, they could have eliminated the presence in Europe, and possibly even get the USA to surrender. Then, they could focus on Russia. But, like I said before, Hitler made a foolish choice to take on two SUPERPOWERS (USA and Russia) at the same time. They both had 12 million troops each, which is more than Nazi Germany and their allies combined. They had much more to focus on than the Soviet Union.The cold weather:It was also idiotic to invade during Summer, because Hitler did know it would take a long time to clear out the Soviet Union, and Fall and Winter are right around the corner. The reason they lost so many men was due to the cold weather. As you can see from this map, Nazi Germany was taking so much land, until they hit winter. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) This map shows how the invasion was spread out, and also what time period each took place at. Right after September, the invasion halted. German troops were worn down by the winter, and over 15,000 limbs had to be amputed due to frostbite. [2] The German's really did underestimate the Russian's winter, and they thought they could tough it out, but they lost more troops from the cold than mostly anything else.Fighting a war on two fronts, the Middle East:So Nazi Germany had to deal with 2 big countries on the western front, and on the east another superpower which was the Soviet Union. Because Nazi Germany and allies had 20 million troops, and the Soviet Union and USA had 24 million combined, it was stupid to try to attack going both ways. 16 million coming from one side, and 12 million coming from the other. Hitler and the Germans had only 20 million troops to spare, so they either had to go 10 million on each side, or plan on dividing it. But, some allied troops were spread thin, (like the Japanese) because they were already being attacked, so they had less troops on each side, which led to each side pushing the German's back. On the other hand, if they had focused on the Western Front and the Russians later, they would have 20 million fighting a western front battle, versing 16 million allies. (estimate) Also, if they had attacked down in the Middle East, they would have taken away oil from the USA (as Con stated before) and possibly get a strategical advantage on the Russians later if they had to deal with them. Instead, they attacked them right out of Europe, which was a really stupid move.. [3]Over to you, Con.Cites:[1]- http://www.nationalww2museum.org...[2]- http://www.history.com...[3]- http://classroom.synonym.com...