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

Kind regards to Pro for their reply.You do not need to apologize for posting your arguments 'late', take as much time as you have.I will use this round primarily for rebuttals and will present supporting arguments and evidence for those arguments.Rebuttals and arguments:Pro claims that I would not know how combat worked in the 1940's. This is quite incorrect, as I have great knowledge about pastime, as well as present day strategies and weapons of war and am taking all of this into consideration. It is not to question whether Zhukov signed the papers or not, he stated that he did himself. The actual question would be if he had the blame for the failed counter-offensive in mid 1941, but this is not an actual part of this debate so I will disregard this. The statement that the Soviet Military was not equal to the Wehrmacht in 1941 is incorrect. Weapon wise they were quite equal, while the Nazis had the great disadvantage that they were invading. The Soviets had the 'home ground advantage' (see for example Vietnam, Vietcong was highly disadvantaged to the US yet had major Success) with Guerrillas as well as the general population supporting the Soviets. Also Pros claims about the "Great Purge" are incorrect. Pro is correct that it was assumed that up to 50% of Red Army officers had been purged, however these numbers are grossly incorrect. The correct number would be a maximum of around 7.7% (Stephen Lee, European Dictatorships 1918-1945, page 56), thus meaning that Pros assumption about 'disorganization' due to Officers is incorrect. Furthermore in the 'Winter War', the war of the Soviet Union against Finland, the Finnish used 'force multipliers' very effectively, such as weather, skills, position, ambushes, knowing when to fight as well as being advantaged by Soviet under supply. This made them able to cause many casualties and to hold out as long as they did. Ever watched the movie '300'? Same principal, different time, based on historic events. This does not mean that the Soviets were a weak force, the Finnish were simply fighting with non conventional warfare methods, something a conventional force can only hardly fight against. Why do you think the Mongols were able to have the largest empire ever, or why the Nazis 'Blitzkrieg' was so effective? Their enemies were not weak, the tactics were simply unconventional.The Red Army, though inferior in some ways, was greatly advantaged. After the 'oomph' phase of the Blitzkrieg was over and the fatal 'Sommerpause' was made, Winter came. The Soviets had the advantage in this weather, as their infantry and troops were able to move, while the Nazi forces were not. Think of it this way: If the Nazis wanted to take ground, they would have to move, while the Soviets simply had to sit there. They had the 'defender bonus', as well as having time to mobilize their enormous troops, that shadowed the Nazi troops in every way, especially considering that the Nazis had several fronts, while the Soviets effectively only had one (if you discount their 700 thousand troops stationed in the far east)Pro also seems to think that winter 'cleared' the roads for the Nazi troops. Seemingly Pro has never encountered heavy snowfall or any harsh winter of any sort. It would have been easier for troops to move in October than in December. Personally I prefer this Over this... (in a 'mobility' type of view. I love winter and especially snow) In mud soldiers can still move more or less, while in the winter the roads are absolutely blocked, as well as soldiers not being able to move effectively. The Soviets had Ski troops, which the Nazis had not, which gave them a huge advantage, as it gave the Finnish, over the Nazi forces. Zhukov had no effect on this, unless he somehow created the snow. Also, just to add this, vehicles do not really operate that well in temperatures around -40 degrees Celsius. Engines will not start, simply because the fuel is frozen, a problem that was very present for the Nazi forces. Nazi forces were not prepared for winter warfare, while Soviet ones were. This however, once again, had nothing to do with Zhukov. Soviet individuals dealt with this every year, while Nazis never had encountered this or even thought about winter warfare.Pro seems to assume that WW2 was fought with 'modern conventional warfare'. This is partly correct, however, numbers were still very important in WW2, as an example the US army was even after WW2 still teaching soldiers to stand in a line and fire salves. WW1 may have been the last war in which infantry was fighting in closed lines and fired salves, however many tactics like this were still present and used in WW2. With this type of warfare present, numbers make a huge impact. Furthermore it is well known that defenders in battle normally do not need equal numbers to the attackers to make an impact (see D-Day and allied casualties). Now imagine a situation in which there are more defenders than attackers. This is what happened up to 1942, when the Soviets turned the situation around and attacked the weaker and disadvantaged Nazi forces. This, once again, had nothing to do with Zhukov. The Soviets were clearly advantaged in the stage of the war from 1942 onwards, Zhukov did not change a lot of this fact. Pro is correct that Moscow was the most important city for the Soviet Union. However, taking the Capitol of a Nation that is still 'war able' can be a big problem, especially for a smaller, stretched out force like the Wehrmacht. The Soviets, while possibly demoralized, would have fought like hell for Moscow, in a siege as well as in a retake, and I would doubt highly that the Nazis were able to take Moscow in December 1941, nor hold it. It is clear that the Soviets were inferior to the Nazi forces during the invasion, which was due to tactics, as well as a non mobilized Soviet army, however, after the initial Blitzkrieg phase was over the Soviets were more advantaged in almost every aspect. Not due to Zhukov however, but due to mistakes made by the enemy, defender advantages, weather advantages, supply advantages, skill advantages, advantages in numbers, advantages in support (allies, guerrillas, population), and many more. Conclusion:In conclusion the Soviets had many more advantages than the Nazi forces. Zhukov had little to nothing to do with these, as such the Soviets could and would have easily had the same outcome of the war as they did (possibly not final outcome, however that was far beyond any point of possible 'losing' to Nazi Germany). I will not say anything against Zhukov's skill as a tactician, however the Soviet defence of Moscow would have taken the same way without him. After the 'Sommerpause' the only way the Eastern Front was going was a loss for the Nazis, as stated by their own Quartermaster General in November 1941 "We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and material. We are about to be confronted with the dangers of deep winter.". The Nazis already had lost around 23% of their troops, around 700 thousand, before winter even fell, while being unprepared against a prepared and advantaged enemy. This all has no connection to Zhukov. The simple truth is that all odds were against Nazi Germany. This thus means that the Soviet Union would not have lost to Nazi Germany, with or without Zhukov.