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

Final Arguments and Rebuttals:Pro poses a valid question, asking how the Nazi forces were able to occupy such a 'large' (small in comparison to Soviet area) in just 6 months. However, I have addressed exactly this previously, in round 3, where I stated that the simple reason was the Nazi 'Blitzkrieg' tactic, as well as the Soviets not being prepared against such a attack. The Soviets did not even expect such an attack, to keep it short, this has no relation to the topic at hand, nor the quality of leadership or the capabilities of tacticians on either side. The Soviets gained a clear advantage with the fall of winter, for which Nazi forces were not prepared, as well as the several fronts Nazi Germany was fighting on, followed by much larger troop strength on Soviet side. This all quite easily negates Pros assumption of Zhukov's great involvement and saviour like status proposed by Pro. As for the war against Finland, one year prior to the invasion by Nazi Germany, a extremely harsh winter was recorded. Soviet 'machine' advantage was suppressed by this, as temperatures reached way beyond the freezing point of both petrol and diesel, thus making Soviet tanks and such basically useless. The Finnish chose their battles very wisely, as well as acting like a guerrilla force, making them virtually unbeatable. I will not comment too much on the Great Purge, as neither Pro nor myself seem to know the actual effects of the outcome, neither do I want to speculate nor is this very important to the topic, as it is evident that the Soviet Union still had enough high ranking officers as well as well trained ones. Just because some of the top officers were purged does not mean that the overall quality of the military was greatly affected, officers one step lower could have been as qualified if not more qualified. Pro still does not seem to grasp that 'frozen road and snowfall does not equal free road'. It is the exact opposite, especially for troops that were in no way prepared for the situation. This does thus not show Zhukov's qualities as a general, nor shows an implication of why only he was able to 'win' against the enemy forces. The Soviet forces were already well mobilized in the winter of late 1941, and as such it would have been a huge task for the Nazi forces to take Moscow. Pro also seems to forget the extreme fundamental issue at hand, Nazi Forces were stretched thin, even with the majority of the Nazi forces being on the eastern front, this was still the largest military confrontation in history, a front, at the largest expansion a little shorter than the US-Mexican border. This means that Zhukov, even when threatened by invasion of Moscow, was never really challenged. Pro fails to make a point with their last argument, as the statement contradicts itself. On one side Pro quotes the statement which says that combat readiness and effectiveness was not affected, on the other hand the partisans robbed supply lines. If supply lines are affected, the military is affected. Of course this makes a benefit to the Soviet side, even if the Partisans were not sympathising with the Soviets, they were surely not sympathising with the Nazis. And the Nazis had problems with resistance everywhere, even in Germany itself. Final Conclusion:I will not question Zhukov's skill as a leader and tactician, however I stand firm by the believe that he did not play such a great role as Pro tries to make him out to have had, nor that without him the Soviets would have 'Lost' to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany was fighting a war they could only lose, if we look at the overall occurrences in the time this is very clear, as well as the Soviet superiority, for which Zhukov was in no way responsible. Thus as a final conclusion I will have to state that the Soviet Union would not have lost against Nazi Germany in WW2 without Marshal Zhukov, nor would they have, with any moderately skilled person in charge. The Soviets were greatly advantaged, thus meaning that Zhukov had less to do or to save than Pro seems to assume. The role he played in WW2 in the defence of the Soviet Union may have been impressive, however, the same outcome would have been achieved, as stated above, with another individual in his place, the defeat of Nazi Germany, which implies that the Soviet Union would not have 'lost' against Nazi Germany. Kind Regards to Pro for this debate, thanks to all Readers and Voters, have a nice day!