Nazi Germany could have won

I have read Pro's argument, and would like to know this: 1. How would I have known his sources, given he had not stated them? 2. Why are you thinking so high of the Japanese? 3. How were the British pilots not experienced? Pro has stated some outrageous things, especially the Japanese style of warfare. Pro has stated that the Japanese tenacity was like the Spartans' last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae. I would like to state that the very height of the Japanese military were fearing even prior to Pearl Harbor. The Japanese Navy Admiral, Isokoru Yamamoto, said to his generals, "Gentlemen, we have just kicked a rabid dog". The Japanese, from then on, fought from fear. Yamamoto had spied on America first-hand, and had even tried to dissuade the attack on Pearl Harbor. The American war industry created 131 aircraft carriers throughout the war, vital to any naval battle, for it provided itself air support. And the Japanese? 17. Now, if those 17 carriers, even with their Zeros and kamikaze skills, had fought the Americans, I highly doubt the Japanese could've sunk more than 10. Back to RAF pilots, you seem to be forgetting that most pilots from World War 1 were 39-42 by the time World War 2 had started, still an acceptable age for pilots. Most of those 20 years, they were called back to their bases to practise the new planes, much better than the Wright-brother style planes of the 1910's. You seem to be forgetting the planes themselves. The Spitfires were much better than the BF-109's. On top of that, if the Germans could reach England, they could only stay for 3-5 minutes. If they were shot down, they would be forced to surrender: RAF pilots could've hopped into another plane the same day and return fire. The British also had radar, so they could know where the Germans were. Those advantages, as seen in the summer of 1940 itself, are enough to prove the British would've held on. German military strength was cut to pieces by the Treaty of Versailles, so the experienced pilots of Germany were forced to resign the German Luftwaffe of WW1, or face the consequences. So the German's only experience were Poland (hardly an experience giving country) France (of whom surrendered almost immediately) and the countries of Central Europe. So... 9 months of German pilot experience vs... 26 years of British pilot experience. That's a good 25 year, 3 month difference. You've helped my point for Italy, proving that it was a useless country. Now, add that to the abundance of countries that Germany had as allies that were also useless (Finland, Bulgaria, Romania) and it's basically the same thing: Germany with its small European empire, Britain with its worldly one. Back to Japan, you claimed the Japanese fought bravely. For this argument, I would like to refer to one of George S Patton's famous quotes, "Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets". This can be used to counter arguments of "brave" (or rather stupid) German and Japanese fanatics. As for North Africa, you seem to be underestimating British equipment: Heavy artillery batteries (which fired 7 hours straight in prelude to El Alamein battle 2) Churchill and Sherman tanks (both quicker and quieter than their German counterparts, which also outnumbered the Germans 25 to 1, including Flak 88's) and the massive amount of supplies from the Empire, including men (from Free France, Britain, South Africa, Australia, Indians and New Zealand) of whom were 1,000,000 to Germany and Italy's 300,000) and supplies such as oil, water and food. Rommel's tanks were excellent, no doubt. But you know your tanks are gonna be useless soon when you're stealing gasoline from your Italian allies. All in all, all arguments have been countered. I wish Pro luck in the result of this and future arguments. Vote Con! http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://mobile.brainyquote.com... http://en.m.wikipedia.org...