The Italians cost Nazi Germany World War 2.

3R1NRC: On SpainFirstly, the opponent has stated, rather falsely, that Spain was an Axis Nation. For nations to be officially designated as "Axis" nations, they must have singed the Triparite Pact; the three original signers of this pact were Germany, Japan, and Italy. Soon, however, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria and Slovakia joined; these nations were fascist nations. Nations, such as Thailand, Manchuria and China, were called "unofficial" Axis nations, as they never signed the Triprarite Pact but was in a way, officially at war with Allied Nations (and often fought side by side with Axis powers). Note that Spain was not in any of these agreements; albeit they were ideologically close, they did not declare war on any of the Allied forces. The Blue Division was composed of an army of volunteers sent to Leningrad and Stalingrad to fight; they were not an official Spanish Armed Forces per se. Francisco Franco was determined to not plunge his country into a war; the opponent's logic would be that any country that supported Germany could be considered "Axis Nations" However, take note that Sweden sent iron to both the British and the German forces; but they were officially neutral. India might have also been considered an Axis country as they did provide a Legion (Free Indian Legion) to support the Nazi cause. Nevertheless, I am not here to defend Spain, but to defend Italy.3R2NRC: On FranceThe opponent talks about France in an absurd way; he did not talk about the "French Army" but the "Free French" At this point, we must observe that the Free French were in no ways as organized as the French Army; the Free French Army was one of the largest, biggest and possible best organized resistance groups in the war. The opponent ignores the fact the Free French forces carried out increasingly effective campaigns against Vichy France, albeit most of them occured outside of Europe. But apart from this, without the Free French forces, Paris would have never been freed; Paris was the symbol of German dominance in France. Apart from this, the "Free French" forces cannot be compared to the French Army; one cannot compare a government to a political party, an organization to an army, apples to oranges. However, again I am not here to defend Spain, or France, but I am here to defend Italy.3R3NRC: On ItalyFirstly, the opponent states that Italy would not have launched an attack on Germany even if they weren't allies; but the opponent makes the fatal mistake here. He "assumes" that a condition was met, and with this assumption, he took another course. However, in making alternative historical hypothesis about something, we must take the status quo of the nation and work from their. Henceforth, we are talking about the fascist Italy, and not the non-Fascist Italy that might have prevailed if it weren't for Mussolini. Mussolini was a staunch revanchist; he had a plan to reclaim "unredeemed" lands. His alliance with Hitler was brought about because of two things; (1) the need of another superpower to support it's involvement in Ethiopia, and (2) he needed economic assistance. In 1938, Austria was annexed by Germany in an action called Anschluss; via an agreement in 1934, Italy was bounded by alliance to assist Austria. Italy responded to the news of Anschluss with deep condemnation; Mussolini had designs upon the province of Dalmatia, a province with around 30,000 Italian speaking inhabitatns. Dalmatia was part of Austria before Anschluss, and after Anschluss, part of Germany; so it would have been incorrect to assume that Italy would have done nothing, when it was clear that millions of Germany's men were in the West, to reclaim these lands. The opponent's "let's say" arguments are based on truisms that are historically inaccurate, which makes his analysis more or less a crazy hypothesis.One must now look at Italian soldiers in WWII; the opponent provides us with a vague explanation of the events that happened in WWII, but I guess that this shall do. Italian soldiers in WWII are often called "ineffective" and many other derogratory names. But firstly, we must observe the opponent's attacks against Romanian and Hungarian troops first. "THE ROMANIANS DIDN'T HAVE ANTI-TANK WEAPONS" Such lies; the Romanians did indeed have anti-tank weapons, most notably the obsolete 37mm and 47mm, but when these were proven obsolete, the Romanians were reduced to using Molotov Cocktails and AT mines, also very effective Anti-Tank weapons. This was the same case as the Germans and the Finns; they both destroyed a considerable amount of Russian tanks. "Hungarians did not have enough ammunition" This claim is not supported by any source and has yet; the Hungarian troops were often confused, and fled; but this is another issue, and not an issue of this debate. But the cowardice, the oppoennt says, is like comparing "The Blue Division to a bunch of stooges" Firstly, this is a very disrespectful statement; the Italian forces were sent in to fight a war in a manner completely different from their training. Deploying Alpinis to guard a river was like deploying a Navy Regiment into a landlocked country; and with this said, the Alpinis did incredibly well, often fighting to the last man and holding enemy with forces twice the size of theirs. Apart from this, the opponent provides no account of any Italian "stooge" being killed; he just simply states that. He has ignored action at the center of the German Rear during Little Saturn, the pre-Uranus action when Italian riflemen defended their grounds and even annihilated a Soviet Riflemen regiment who would've punched holes into the line, allowing Soviet troops to attack Germans from the rear, but most of all, he has ignored Soviet War Bulletin N.630 and the heroic action of the Alpinis in their epic breakthrough at Nikolaevky. The Italians were slaughtered, but at least the fought till the end whilst being slaughtered; this gave the Germans more breathing time, and if it weren't for the Italians, Germany would have been defeated within 1943.3R4NRC: On Rommel and ZhukovHere we are comparing two commanders with a completely different mindset; Zhukov was a Deep Operational Warfare-oriented person, whilst Rommel was a Blitzkrieg oriented commander. With this said, it has been proven that Zhukov's commanding style would have destroyed the commanding style of Rommel. I can see this happening; firstly, accordingly to Clausewitz, Rommel would have concentrated all his forces (corps of around 40,000 men) on one point; Zhukov would then just come with an overwhelming amount of men, tanks and supplies, and would have forced Rommel into retreat due to the threat of encirclement, as Zhukov would have attacked on South and North of the Rommel-Salient. The Reich Army was Clausewitz-based, and they often came unprepared for new warfare. This was shown at Operation Uranus and the Winter Offensives of 1941, when Russian forces completely annihilated German forces; Rommel would have followed the same path as these German commanders (acting accordingly to their highly Clausewitz-oriented manner), and would have been annihilated. He would not have seen the new threat coming; no German Commander, including Hitler and Guiderian, could've predicted the deployment of 17 new divisions during the Winter of 1941. Operation Uranus and Little Saturn was as much unexpected. This was a war between two schools of warfare, and one prevailed. Henceforth, the Resolution is Negated All sources from last round