An WW2 debate that is sure to become off topic and irrelevant!

You claim to believe that the Hellcat was better than the Zero. You are wrong there. Prior to the capturing of a Zero before the Battle of Midway, the Americans had no idea how to counter it. By capturing the Zero, they knew it was weak and disadvantaged when attacking in a nosedive. So it is indeed tactics, not strength of the two planes, which decide which is better. The Germans didn't have radar. Where on earth did you receive that information? The Germans believed the British ability to see in the dark relied on carrots, not radar, clearly proving they were unaware of the advantage the British had. You also have seemed to forgotten the British cracked Enigma. The British, as well as radar, knew where and when the Germans would strike. Now to the planes themselves. The BF-109 would only be able to fly at a top speed of 409 MPH, as opposed to the Spitfire's 450 MPH. Those 41 MPH meant that Spitfires could chase down German scouts flying over the Channel, as well as having advantages while in dogfights. The British would fly in squadrons, with fully loaded machine guns, against the Stukas and He111's and BF-109's, which could only stay over Britiain for 2-5 minutes, before being forced back to refuel. Also, if an Englishman was shot down, he could hop into another Spitfire the same day and continue fighting. A German? He would've been captured and disallowed to fight for the rest of the war. The Germans didn't have many heavy artillery batteries by the second battle of El Alamein; they had been wiped out by a raid prior to the battle. The British had over 1000 tanks during the second battle of El Alamein, while the Germans had 250. So your German strength superiority argument is invalid, as the Allied Sherman outnumbered German ones 3-1. Rommel was also short on food, fuel and oil. You can't ride a tank without fuel, therefore you can't fire it either. So the Panthers and Panzers would've been sitting ducks either way. The Panzer I, as stated in your argument, is the only tank faster than a Sherman. But there weren't many Panzer I's in the North African front, and if there were, I highly doubt a 1 MPH difference would've made any difference. But back to the current argument: The Japanese Imperialists are better than the Fascists. Reasons, reinforced by sources: 1. The Fascists forced the people to be fully devoted to their country, or they would've been executed/deported. The Japanese didn't stoop to that level, which allowed free speech, free beliefs and freedom altogether. Not extreme freedom, but enough for the people of Japan to breath. The Germans and Italians? They were suffocated by unfair dictators. 2. Nazi Ideology itself. The Nazi ideology believes in Anti-Semitism, which is hatred of the Jews. Now, believing certain people are sub-humans for their religion is pure rhubarb. The Germans would embrace this and exterminate over 6 million Jews in over 500 concentration camps. 3. Military stupidity Both the Imperialists and Fascists made errors, such as not knowing their codes had been broken and choosing to attack military superpowers (the USA and the Soviet Union), but some of the more horrendous military errors were made by the German High Command. I will list a few for examples: 1. The Battle of Dunkirk. Allowing the British army to regroup probably led the Nazis to loss in the Western Front. 2. Alliance with Italy. Italy's army took eight months to conquer Abbysinia (Ethiopia). So why did Hitler help Mussolini out? Mussolini, in my opinion, bogged down the Afrika Korps. The Afrika Korps could've been the one army that could've won the Battle of Moscow, which brings me to the German's next military problem... 3. Operation Barbarossa The Germans already had a pact: did they really have to send three million troops because of Hitler's belief this was just "lebensraum" he could easily swipe? Turns out not. Everything from war industry to propaganda was stronger in the Soviet Union. 4. Hitler's declaration of war on the USA The Germans already had problems in Russia; why stick your arse into North America when Russia isn't finished? A stupid declaration of war, signing a surrender in North Africa, Italy and Western Europe. Those are my arguments, everything refuted, problems made for Pro, good day.