Germany (along with its allies) had the military capacity to win the second world war

RebuttalMy opponents sole argument in R2 is that the Germans were unwise in taking so long to reach Moscow and that the strategic blunder in not prioritising Moscow led to the eventual demise of Nazi Germany. I would like to rebut this argument with one argument of my own. My assertion is that the Germans could have reached Moscow, and therefore beaten the Soviet Union, had they improved both their technology and industry. Before I begin, I would like to provide a map of the situation during December of 1941. Not for my own argument, but simply for our readers to have a reference point. First of all, the Germans simply did not have the resources required to pull off an invasion of Moscow before the close of 1941. At the beginning of December just one third of the German vehicles were still running. This is due to both a lack of fuel and due to the Luftwaffe's inability to bring the supplies to the armies. On the topic of the Luftwaffe, the planes were having a particularly hard time along the massive Soviet front. This is due to a number of reasons. One being that the Luftwaffe had no significant long-distance fighter, as the Me-110 was proved to be a total disaster. Second, the Russian winter had proved to be simply to much for the Luftwaffe to handle. The Red Army solved this problem by utilizing heated hangars. However, the Luftwaffe did not have this luxury and therefore struggled. The next, and probably most important part of my rebuttal, is that the Germans simply did not have the industry nor the technological ability, to mechanize their troops. What I mean by this is that the Nazis were unable to provide the Wermacht with sufficient trucks so as to give the infantry greater mobility. Just as a notice, an infantry division with trucks so as to provide mobility is called a mechanized division. The reason for this inability to mechanize infantry is mainly due to their inability to mass produce. I displayed this in my original argument under D2. Mechanized troops proved to be absolutely essential in World War II, and especially during Operation Barbarossa. The mechanized divisions could move at significantly faster speeds than regular infantry. This was important for the invasion of Russia because, as my opponent noted, it was key that the Germans reached Moscow (or Leningrad) before the Russian winter began. Therefore, if Hitler wanted the Germans to reach Moscow within just six months he would need his armies to move at the fastest possible speed. Due to the fact that the majority of his divisions were not mechanized, this was impossible. The majority of the infantry divisions resorted to using horses or stolen Russian trucks so as to move at greater speeds. These proved to be inefficient as they were unable to reach Moscow in time. The Russians in December of 1941, on the other hand, had excellently equipped infantry. While at the beginning of Barbarossa this was not the case, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, strangely enough, proved to be the savior of the Red Army. Once the US entered the war they instantly began mass producing military supplies. Amongst these were trucks for mechanized divisions. The US, along with the UK, were able to supply the Soviets with mass numbers of Ford trucks, and therefore the Soviet infantry had an enormous advantage over the horse riding German infantry. Therefore the outcome of the war relied on the ability for industry to supply their armies, not the strategy nor the battles. The Germans were simply unable to supply their army, partially due to the ignorance of Hitler and mostly due to the flaws of National Socialism. American industry and Soviet manpower were absolutely key in the Allies victory. True, Hitler and his generals may have made a few strategic errors along the way, yet in the end the result of the war had nothing to do with the battlefield. Back over to you, Pro. Sources[1] http://books.google.com......