The role of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies.

Stalin has pulled all the stops out for this round! Well done :) "No, I simply rebut your arguments and you often restate your arguments with different wording." Simply put, I feel as though you keep saying the same points as word fillers rather than expanding on them. I, however, have been refraining from doing that but I have found it difficult as you keep circling back to the original statement causing me to re state my rebuttal. "The Western Allies were well aware that Germany had broken the Treaty of Versailles" The Allied forces were only aware that Germany had built up a little military, but assumed that it was because the threat of Russia, as that is what the Allies were wary of too. However the allies did do nothing about Germany increasing their military because it was seen as "too little" and because they simply wanted to avoid conflict. "Actually, the USA stopped some 50 miles from Berlin on the west bank of the Elbe River." That was my mistake; British 21st Army Group crossed the Elbe River. I meant Allies. But as stated previously, Hitler's last escape route was cut off by the U.S. "With his escape route to the south severed by the 12th U.S." (http://en.wikipedia.org...). "Africa had no economic or strategic importance" On the contrary, Germany and Italy had colonial interests and the strategic value was simply an expanse into a continent which the U.S. would have extreme trouble in invading due to the amount of land which needed reconnaissance. This (if successful) would have spread the U.S. troops out even further. And your comparison is accurate, yet neglecting the fact that this is ONE of my arguments to prove my point. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) "American supplies basically saved Britain; they were minor in the east" Saying that Britain was minor in the east is illogical. Britain was one of the main powers in the east and responsible for countless deaths, recaptures and victories against Nazi soldiers. "The allied invasion of France had no effect on the outcome of the war." Agreed that the France re-capture should have been executed earlier. But I disagree that it had no effect on the outcome of the war. Sure the war was on its last legs but the re-capture of France meant less German troops in certain areas, and made it easier to push the Germans back into Berlin, rather than to have been flanked by straggling Nazi's from France. "The Western Allies fought on small fronts in Africa, Italy, and France. Small and unimportant compared to the eastern front. " You say they are small and un-important, yet without them it seems that Germany would have won the war. The western fronts halted Germany's advance on other western countries. It is ignorant to say they played a small role as they are a huge reason the Allies won the war. "Out of everything you said so far, this is the most incorrect." 1. True it was not their war, yet the strength of the German military was obvious to the Soviets during those two years, and it was obvious that Germany was preparing to pull a "Napoleon Bonaparte" as they were reinforcing their eastern front. (http://www.britannica.com...) 2. Yes the U.S. was not directly (directly being the key word) involved in the war until after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, yet they were still supplying the RAF with Lockheed jet engines and military supplies. Not to mention a mass gathering of troops and naval force before they got involved does sound like they were preparing to declare war. Otherwise, why would Japan bother to bomb Pearl Harbor if it was not a threat? (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 3. I will now refer to a pop-culture reference in response to "however it took them two days to declare war on Germany" One does not simply declare war in one day. 4. In response to "they just sat behind the Maginot line while Germany invaded Poland in two weeks". If Germany was able to invade Poland so quickly, do you honestly think it would have been possible for the Allies to immediately put up an effective counter offensive without incurring more loss than gain? 5. "My point is that most of Europe was losing the war until the Soviets entered." Might I also point out that the U.S. also joined the war in December 1941, while the Soviets joined the war in June 1941? My point here is that it's odd to just assume it was the Soviets when there are many other variables in play whilst the Soviets joined the war. 6. "The only reason Germany lost in Africa was because he needed all of the 3.8 million men for the Eastern Front; he could only spare about 150,000 to send to Africa." War is not just fought with man-power, but also with tactics, insight and reconnaissance. Sure he needed many of his men to fight the Soviets, but that does not prove that the Soviets had a bigger impact. It just proves there were more Soviets than allies. "Germany did destroy many Soviet planes; however that does not change the fact that some 50% of the Luftwaffe was destroyed in the east." Again as stated in the previous round, it was only a minor loss to the Luftwaffe. "No I was simply trying to show you how insignificant the fighting that the western allies endured was compared to what happened on the eastern front and how small and unimportant the fronts the western allies fought on were." That essentially is an argument, and since it does not coincide with your 1st three points, you have broken your own rule. Also I do not think that the Soviets saved Britain, I think it was more RAF tactics, and the U.S. rather than the self-absorbed Soviets. "Saying that "over 25 million Soviets died during WWII" isn't an argument" I was more eliminating any point of you saying that the Soviets had superior tactics or anything similar to that. Also I will refer back to killing more soldiers does not necessarily mean that the Soviets played the most vital role, as I have proven in previous rounds. In Conclusion: The points of which I have addressed clearly tie into the actual debate topic, rather than diverting off into just what the Soviets did. My opponent has mainly gone into statistics about how many Soviet soldiers were killed and how many Germans the Soviets killed, which (again) does not prove his point. My opponent has also made various new arguments in his debate and tried to disguise them, this is a direct violation of his own rules. He has also used indirect terms when referring to historical events. I will not recap my arguments: 1. The Soviets were delayed in entering the war, which proves they had no intention of fighting and only had their own motives, not that of others. This also ties into that the only main enemy they had were the Germans while the Allies had numerous other enemies such as Japan and Italy. 2. The Allied Powers had less manpower and economic power yet did more damage. This can be proven by how much territory and countries the Allies actually defeated and defended, while the Soviets were more concerned about their own lines and were too self-absorbed to help. 3. The RAF destroyed the Luftwaffe making it so the Soviets did not have to contend with any German air force or sir supply drops. Essentially my opponent seemed to undermine my arguments by trying to prove how UN important the Allies fronts, battles and defense were. Even going as far as saying they did not help the war at all. Yet my opponent still failed to prove this with any proper argument. I thank my opponent for an intellectual and well fought debate. Vote CON!!