The USSR was more pivotal to winning WW2 in Europe than the USA and Britain were

It was the job of my opponent to prove how the soviet union was more pivotal in winning WW2, and it was my job to show how it was a collective effort of all nations. This is important to keep in mind when voting. My opponent has not sufficiently proven that the USSR, and the USSR alone, was most pivotal in winning the war. He simply shows many statistics pointing towards the amount of German casualties the Russians managed to stack up. There is no way you can state that to win a war, all you must do is take enough life. That's not the objective to winning a war. You need to plan out a strategy and have a combination of tactics and brute force. USSR had the amount of troops necessary to counter the Germans, I.E. brute force. Britain and US had implemented a correct strategy to fight the Nazi's by disrupting their union with the Italians and by concentrating their efforts on strongpoints, I.E. Tactics. So we see Russia to have the force, and US and Britain to have the tactic. These are two things you need to win a war, and this war was no different. Therefore, I have upheld my side of the resolution, and my opponent has not. He has simply proved my side further by continuing to post statistics on German deaths and Russian deaths. I would like to take this time to go back to my original points, of which my opponent largely ignored. The USSR helped Hitler establish himself My opponent only mentions this in his last round, stating that Stalin had to because he was not ready for war. This is irrelevant. Britain wasn't ready for war either, yet they had no part in a non-aggression pact. But that's a side point to the main picture here. Russia trained German troops and gave ample room for growth for the Nazi army . There is no excuse for such an action, and this directly leads to WW2 being such a huge problem. My quotes on Stalin stating how he wanted to take over Europe himself is also not addressed. This is a huge issue because it shows that Stalin had all intentions of joining with Hitler. This point has been mainly ignored by my opponent. The readers should take this into account upon voting. Again, two countries that fought hard against Germany and gave them no leniency versus Russia, who helped train German soldiers and only fought back once they were attacked. It's more than fair on my part to state that all three of these nations are equally important in winning world war 2. The Eastern Front Fell Due to Hitler, Not The USSR Again, this isn't really reflected on by my opponent. HE states that Germany failed in almost all of it's endeavors, not just it's attack on the USSR. If this was true, however, we wouldn't see the Nazi empire grow to how large it did. Like I said, Hitler underestimated the Russian cold and made a mistake going deep into enemy territory. His supply lines were stretched thin and made easy targets. His army, once the cold really set in, was broken on multiple layers. The Russians simply fought dying Germans. This should hardly be considered an accomplishment. This was Hitler's mistake, not Russia's success. Like my opponent states, all russia did was "...push them back to Berlin". After that, of course Russia kicked it into gear and started really going on the offensive, but again, it just lead to a meat grinder. More Russians were killed then Germans. The same can't be said of the US and Britain. US/UK split German focus My opponent literally brushes off the Italian campaign as unimportant. How exactly is taking out the southern half of Europe and one of Germany's allies not important? Moreover, how exactly can my opponent view the USSR as more pivotal when they did nothing of the sort! My opponent's only defense is that Normandy is closer to Berlin then Moscow, and the Russians reached Berlin first. Well good for them. That, however, just proves that whips make soldiers march faster. I have two valid points here that are unanswered, another variable to factor into your votes. So far, we have multiple points of mine that are ignore. That alone should give me the win for this debate. Now to finalize my attack. My opponent's main case seems to be the amount of troops that the USSR was able to eliminate. That, and the fact that the USSR was able to take Berlin, hardly an accomplishment. More Germans Killed To this main point, I ask a question. Would the USSR be able to handle all of Germany and Italy on it's own? Say US and Britain were out of the picture....can the readers possibly see the Russians, who almost lost Moscow to an assault that would be increased tenfold with the absence of the other allies, being able to not only push back the massive Axis assault but then eliminate the German and Italian threats once and for all? It's not a feasible thing to suggest. It's also not feasible to suggest that the US and Britain could have done it alone. I am advocating a position of shared importance, something that seems very fair considering all the work the US and Britain did compared to the Soviets. Like I said before, it takes force and tactic to win a war. The Russians were able to muster up the force, though they lost close to 20 million before the war was over. America and Britain took decisive action through multiple key victories that not only drew German attention to the West, but eliminated the Italians, an ally of the Germans. USSR took Berlin Yes, they did. That, however, was the end of the war. The defenses of Berlin were very scarce, as many of the troops had run away over the course of the assaults [1]. The Nazi empire had crumbled. It's army was broken, Hitler was dead. Germany was surrounded, and everything it had accomplished was already being taken down and rebuilt. All that was left was to storm Berlin. This can be compared to turning off a switch that ended the life of a terminal patient. It was very simple, just flick the switch, and it's all over. It's not like Russia was singular in their Berlin success. Anybody could have easily done this, and the Americans would have, if it wasn't for Stalin's eagerness to reach the German research on nukes and other atomic devices. It's this exact eagerness that led to the death of many soviets that didn't need to die if they hadn't been rushing so much. |Conclusion| Throughout this debate, my myopic opponent focus singularly on the amount of German's that Russia was able to kill. But this is not the only thing needed to win a war, as I have stated. It takes multiple efforts through tactic and force, and the US and Britain was able to cooperate with Russia in order to win the war together . My job in this debate was to show how the United States and Britain were equal to the USSR or more important in winning the war. I have successfully shown how this happened, while my opponent has simply shown statistics giving the Russians credit for the deaths of Germans. This, however, is not enough to give them credit for winning World War Two. I thank my opponent for this debate and the readers for taking the time to read and vote. It's through your efforts that keeps the debate system strong. Thank you all. Source 1. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...