The United States' involvement in WWII was just as important in saving Europe as the Soviet Union's.

I will now state mine. Argument I: The Soviet military contributions overshadowed the help that the allies received from American Supplies.80% of the German army was destroyed on the eastern front. In June 22, 1941 3.5 million German troops invaded the USSR. At the same time, there were only 150,000 Germans fighting in Africa against the British. In the previous round Con stated that "after the first winter, Germany's numbers barely went down". That is completely false. In 1941 alone, Germany suffered some 850,000 casualties. Hitler's generals concluded that the German army was no longer capable of launching an offensive along the whole front. [1]The tide was turned on the eastern front. Before Germany invaded the USSR, it had been winning battle after battle and conquering Europe country by country. After Germany invaded the USSR, that all changed. The battle of Moscow was the first time that the German blitzkrieg was stopped and then forced to retreat a hundred miles. The battle of Moscow ensured that Germany would not win a quick victory on its own terms. At Stalingrad, the world was saved. Stalin was prepared to defend the city to the end which means that if Germany had won at Stalingrad, the Soviet army would have been almost completely destroyed. In addition to this, the British Empire was saved. From the Caucuses, Germany could invade the Middle East and from there, they could invade India and open up a second front in Egypt and eventually link up with Rommel (The map bellow will explain this better. On the map, Stalingrad is Volgograd). The Germans may even have been able to link up with Japan. Had Germany won at Stalingrad, the 100,000 American soldiers who had landed in Morocco would not have been of any help. At Stalingrad, not only was Europe saved, the entire world was. Germany suffered its greatest defeat and was in retreat on a scale never seen before. The Battle of Kursk was the third turning point of the war. At Kursk, Germany lost all chances of winning the war. Most of Germany's remaining tanks were destroyed. [2]The Soviets captured Berlin. This is not a very strong argument since anybody could have captured Berlin. However it was the Soviets who captured Berlin which caused Hitler to commit suicide and brought and end to the war. American supplies were very helpful. Con proves this. However what he fails to do is to prove that without American supplies the war in Europe would definitely have been lost. Con presents statistics on how the US gave $50 billion worth in supplies to the allies including $11.3 billion to the USSR. He states that without these supplies, both Britain and the USSR would have lost the war. What Con doesn't do is explain what portion of total Soviet and British production were American supplies. Since Con failed to do so, I will say it myself. American supplies made up around 15% of total Soviet production. By 1943 the Soviets were producing three times as much as Germany. This leads me to believe that without American supplies the war in Europe would have been much harder to win and would have taken much longer to win. However this does not prove that without American supplies, the allies would definitely have lost. American boots did not hit Europe until 1943. America entered the war in late 1941, 6 months after the USSR did. In 1942, America played a junior role in driving Germany out of Africa. In 1943, the United States invaded Sicily. By this time, the axis powers had suffered close to 2 million casualties on the eastern front. The Western Allies did not really play an important role in Europe until 1944, 11 months before the end of the war. The Western Allies had promised to open up a second front in 1942 in France, yet failed to do so. Then the Western Allies had promised the same in 1943, and instead fought minor engagements on the Italian Peninsular. It was only in 1944, when the outcome of the war was already certain, that the Western Allies invaded France. By this time, the Soviets had faced and killed many millions of axis troops. The Soviets had defeated Germany's allies Romania and Finland. By 1944 Germany was down to boys and old men. I will now compare the American and Soviet contributions. As Con stated earlier, the American contributions were largely in supplying the Soviet Union and Britain. However what did America do to actually defeat Germany? America was responsible for the defeat of some 10% of German forces. So clearly the Soviet military contribution was larger than that of the US. However Con argues that America made up for this by sending supplies to support its allies. I disagree. What is harder, giving somebody the money to buy bread, or walking 30 miles to the store to actually go buy the bread. Now lets apply this to WWII. Which is harder, sailing ships loaded with supplies to help the USSR fight Germany, or actually killing million of German soldiers? Over 25 million Soviets died while fighting the Germans. America on the other hand only suffered a few hundred thousand casualties. Germany was defeated by the USSR, therefore the USSR saved Europe from Germany. American supplies merely helped. Argument II: The United States did not save Europe from the Soviets, Stalin did. Stalin did not seize an opportunity granted by the fact that Germany had to fight Britain and France. Stalin could have invaded Europe, but he chose not to. Had Stalin broken the pact with Hitler while Germany was invading France, the Soviet army of over 3 million men could have conquered Germany without much trouble. By the time Germany recovered from the Soviet attack and sent his army to face the Soviets, the Red Army would have been at the gates of Berlin. In addition to this, Hitler would have had to make a difficult choice: stay to finish off France and capture Paris or send his army east to save Berlin. Although Hitler had cut off the allies at the English Channel and killed or captured 2 million men, he had failed to capture Paris. At this point, Stalin could simply invade Germany and invade France who had just almost been defeated by Germany. Following this invasion, the remaining countries would quickly fall in line. However Stalin hid behind a pact and as a result, Europe went under the thumb of the Nazis. Hitler's initial success in Operation Barbarossa was due to Stalin. In 1937, Stalin had purged eight of his best marshal's. In the 1930's, Stalin also killed many of his top scientists who had been developing technology that could be of huge value to the USSR. Stalin replaced skilled military generals, many of whom were just as good as German generals, with loyal Communists who had no military experience. [3] Stalin began producing the incorrect models of tanks and planes because he believed that numbers were what mattered. When Hitler invaded, Stalin was completely unprepared even though it was obvious that the Germans were going to invade. Hundreds of Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the ground. Hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers were encircled at Minsk and in other pockets along the front. Within 5 months, the Red Army had suffered 12 million casualties including 5 million men taken prisoner by the Germans [1]. Who is to blame? Stalin. Had Stalin correctly built the Red Army and not purged his top generals, the USSR could have had the most powerful military in the world. Had Hitler decided to invade the USSR, then the Soviets would have quickly defeated Germany, one army group at a time. The United States or Britain would not have arrived to save Europe from the Soviets in time. Germany would have been defeated quickly. Stalin would have invaded Europe. If Britain had managed to land a few divisions in France, then Stalin would undoubtedly have declared war and seized the entire European continent. Argument III: Britain could have saved Europe from the Soviets alone Britain could have invaded France without the help of the United States. In the previous round, Con stated that the American forces made up about half of the allied forces at D-Day. Therefore, without the United States, invading France would have been impossible. I completely disagree with this. At D-Day, 156,000 allied troops assaulted a 10,000 man German front. In the process, the allies suffered 12,000 casualties. Out of the 156,000 allied troops assaulting Normandy, 83,000 were British and Canadian. I believe that it would have been entirely possible for an allied success without help from American forces. Germany would have been outnumbered 8:1 even without the United States. I agree that perhaps it would not have been possible to successfully take all 5 beeches without American manpower. However all 5 beeches would not have needed to be taken. Three beeches would have gained the allies a foothold in France. Therefore, Europe could have been saved without the United States. [4]Britain could have waited to invade France. Axis forces would go east to fight the Soviets. Think about it this way: Operation Bagration is successfully. In order to defend Berlin, Germany would need to send forces from France to the east thus weakening the defenses in France. While the Soviets are slowed down by German reinforcements, Britain could invade France. The Soviets are fighting the Germans. Britain liberates France aided by French rebels and begin to invade France and Germany. America is not needed. Conclusion: Con went into depth about how the United States played an important role in supplying its allies. I showed how these supplies were overshadowed by the overwhelming Soviet military contribution. Con also talked about how the United States saved Europe from the Soviets. However the British Empire (map) made up half the forces used at D-Day. Also, Stalin saved Europe from himself. Sources:. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...