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

FINAL REBUTTALI'm going to keep my final rebuttal short as it is quite late here and I don't feel like waking up early to get this done (Nevermind it's going to be long :). Regardless, I would like to thank my opponent for partaking in this debate with me as I know that very few people would find any merit in such a specific premise. Without further adieu, let's begin! I am going to disregard the specifics of which army had superior equipment and simply present this question to my opponent. He claims that the Germans and Russians were equal in terms of equipment, and the Nazi's were actually at a severe disadvantage due to them being the invading force. Possibly so, however if they had such a dramatic disadvantage, how could you explain the massive swaths of territory they were able to occupy in just 6 months following Barbarossa? There was simply no competition between German and Soviet forces in the early stages of the invasion. Either the Germans had tremendous luck, or the supposed equality between the invaders and defenders is nothing but a myth. Germans had better equipment, more experience, better trained troops, superior leadership and tactics which allowed them to steamroll throughout Soviet lands. Con observes that my claims regarding the Great Purge are incorrect, however he did not read the specifics of my argument. I stated that over 45% of the senior officers, not all officers, were purged. However the end result is still the same. The Red Army was left with very few veteran officers, who were replaced with inexperienced and ineffective officers. And I maintain my argument that the Soviet failures in Finland are most directly attributed to flaws in Soviet leadership, not Finnish resistance. I acknowledge that Finland fought as well as they could, exceeding all expectations, however had the Soviets been smarter there would have still been no competition. The invading Soviet force reached up to 750,000, with 6,000 tanks, and 3,880 aircraft whereas their Finnish counterparts numbered at best over a quarter million, 32 feeble tanks, and 114 aircraft. The Red Army was, as my opponent consistently points out, better equipped than the Finns in every regard. A few men on skies supported by deadly snipers may have a certain flare, but is useless in the face of hordes of tanks supported by legions of bombers. Therefore the only plausible explanation for the Finns success is that the Soviets had dreadful leadership. Keep in mind that the leading commander of the invasion was none other than our friendly Marshal Voroshislov, who is well known as being completely oblivious in the arts of military commanding. Only when Voroshislov was replaced by the far superior Marshal Semyon Timoshenko (Zhukov's mentor) on the 7th of January did the Soviets see success. On to the controversial weather. I, being a New Englander, am well aware of the implications of heavy snowfall. Yes, the snow that hit in early December was disastrous the the naive German high command. However, the roads were frozen on the 15th of November, thus allowing the German Spearheads to be unleashed. This gave the Germans over two weeks to take Moscow before the truly heavy snow hit. As shown in the map in my opening argument, two weeks was more than enough time to reach the city. On the other side, Zhukov was given the task of defending Moscow with heavily depleted troops for over two weeks until General Winter could take over. This is clearly a testament to Zhukov's skill as a General that he achieved this task. As for the debate on the influence of manpower, I suppose there is no solid argument to counteract my opponent's claims as we both are only presenting our opinions; truthfully well founded opinions, but unprovable none the less. Con states, and correctly so, that for defense less troops are required to hold off an attack. If we return to the Battle of Moscow, however, the German troops numbered just under 2 million, supported by 14,000 guns, 1,000 tanks, and 549 superior Luftwaffe aircraft. The Soviets numbered from 1.2-1.4 million, supported by 7,600 guns, 3,000 beleaguered tanks without radios, and 545 planes. Note that at the time, Russia's senior airman, Pavel Rychagov, brazenly said to Stalin "You're making us fly in coffins! ". The remark got him and his wife killed, but the truth rung true nonetheless. On both sides the troops were weary, but the Germans still maintained over a half a million numerical advantage over the Russians in one of the most critical stages in the war. True, this was a rarity, however I believe that the value of numerical superiority dissolves in the wake of disarray, as apparent in the early stages of the war. As for Moscow, yes they would have fought hard for their city (if they didn't they would be shot), but then again the Germans would then be, as Con points out, in a much easier situation as they would be on the defense, as well as having the numerical advantage. Plus, Moscow is a heavily rural terrain, thus giving the defenders a greater advantage over the attackers (i. e Stalingrad). One last point that I forgot to address in my last rebuttal, albeit minor, was the role of partisans. Con said that partisans rising behind German lines weakened the German advance significantly. In actuality, they were most likely more detrimental to the Soviets than they were advantageous. JT Dykman, a professor at Gettysburg College, however states that "Contrary to popular myth, the Partisans were never strong enough to affect the movement or combat readiness of the German armies. As they increased in numbers they robbed German supply trains and brutally murdered any small enemy unit they could catch. Word of mutilated dead comrades to their rear spread both terror and hatred throughout the advancing German armies and increased their willingness to inflict even more violence on the populations they encountered". CONCLUSIONI do want to confess that Con presented many valid arguments in this debate which I have no choice but to yield to. Yet I still maintain my stance that Zhukov was fundamental to the Soviet war effort. This debate mainly discussed the Battle of Moscow, which is perfectly legitimate given the serious implications of the battle. However I would like to emphasize once more that Zhukov was the commanding general over every single important Soviet battle and victory. I stand firm that the Wehrmacht was a far superior fighting force than the Red Army due to better training and experience from the wars in the West, Poland, and Yugoslavia. They had superior leadership, with great numbers of officers joining the German armed forces after the embarrassment at Versailles. To top this off, the high command was lead by some of the most talented generals in the world: Von Manstein, Guderian, Rommel, Balck, and others. The only detriment to this formidable high command was Hitler himself, who's foolish decisions cost the Germans many opportunities. My primary argument remains that Zhukov provided the Soviet army with desperately needed military leadership that was lacking following the Great Purge and most significantly the execution of Zhukov's predecessor, Marshal Tuchachevskey. This leadership allowed the Soviet Union to survive the onslaught of 1941 and 1942, thus enabling their industry to catch up with their great potential and repel the Germans from the Motherland.