azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

"The Japanese Military was almost as big as the German Military"Yes, but the German military was the greatest in the entire war, it surpassed all the other militaries in technological advancement, training, tactics, etc.,...etc.Even the average German soldier was in many cases worth 2 or 3 Allied soldiers. All of the countries fighting in WW2 were rightly terrified of the Germans, they were a unique force for their time, and anybody who tries to equate them with the Japanese (as you and few others have) simply don't understand the power of the Wermarcht.I have seen fairly compelling arguments that the British navy was superior, and this is why Hitler never tried invading, there are also some question's about whether the Luftwaffe really were the greatest airforce fighting in the war, but at the very least, they were equal to any other.But, on the crucial issue, the actual army, and it's military hardware (tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, etc.) were way ahead of any other fighting in the war. If you doubt this, do some reading;-)"Not really. The soviets vastly outnumbered the Germans and yet they were still getting their asses handed to them"I find your this attempt to diminish one of the greatest military victories in history quite pathetic."if not for the Russian Winter and desperately needed Supplies from the Americans, the Nazis probably would have taken Moscow."Again, you americans always use the old Russian winter and that fact that 24% (which BTW wasn't free and was only provided to weaken the Nazis by prolonging their conflict with teh Soviets who were fully expected to lose convincingly) of the aid you provided went to the USSR, as an excuse for their victory."the Nazis probably would have taken Moscow."This tells me that you simply don't have the depth of knowledge on the subject you think you have. As I have stated in other posts, yes, the Russian winter played a big part, but the aid only matter later when the USSR began to seriously push the Nazis back on all fronts. The USSR halted the Nazi advance and pushed them back 100-250km prior to the arrival of any outside aid.This effectively means that Operation Barbarossa had failed, without any aid being required, now, what would have happened if the US didn't supply aid, or if no other country supplied aid, is a matter of speculation. If you check it out you'll find that most historian's agree it would have ended in some kind of a stalemate after the USSR had exhausted themselves in pushing the Nazis back as far as they could, but it doesn't rule out a Soviet Victory, it rules out a Soviet defeat, that's what nearly all Americans who argue this fail to grasp.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"it surpassed all the other militaries in technological advancement, training, tactics, etc.,...etc.”America invented the nuclear bomb if i am not mistaken, and had the best fighter of the war in the P-51 mustang. The ME-262 had no impact on the war, along with the V-1 and V-2 rockets. Part of technological advancement is ease of manufacturing, and affordability of the equipment, this you cannot dispute. The Sherman, although not comparable to something as the tiger 1v1, there were so many more of them that the tigers strength did not matter, they were not invincible. The soviets and Americans gambled on quantity vs quality, and proved this was a more significant technological advancement than what the Germans had.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

"America invented the nuclear bomb if i am not mistaken"Yes, you are completely mistaken, again, I have done some research into the subject, the scientific expertise came directly from Europe. Remember the time period, Europe was the most modernised part of the planet, if there wasn't a war going on there, the bomb would have been developed in Europe, they even contemplated building it in Britain, but decided the situation there was too precarious. Although many american scientists particpated in Manhattan Project, the expertise required in building the bomb came from the Europe, with out it the US could not have built the bomb, the largest contribution the US made to the project was in supplying the raw material and proivding the necessary hardware and space. This again tell's me you are simply ignorant of the history."and had the best fighter of the war in the P-51 mustang. The ME-262 had no impact on the war, along with the V-1 and V-2 rockets."I really don't want to get into contrasting the merits and demerits of each individual piece of military hardware from each different military, if you don't beleive me that the German army was leaps and bounds ahead of any other in the war, then I advise you do some reading on the subject, as I can guarantee you will struggle to find a historian who tries to claim otherwise. (see my response to Bohemian)"Part of technological advancement is ease of manufacturing, and affordability of the equipment, this you cannot dispute."No, I can dispute this because it's 100% wrong, the isn't what is meant by technological advancement at all, you clearly don't have clue what you're talking about, what you're describing are the conditions necessary to commercialise technology.". The soviets and Americans gambled on quantity vs quality, and proved this was a more significant technological advancement than what the Germans had."Just stop my friend, please stop, you are only embarrassing yourself, I'm not here to argue against something that every military historian would agree with i.e. in WW2 Germany were the eminent military force
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"Handedly can dispute this because it's 100% wrong, the isn't what is meant by technological advancement at all, you clearly don't have clue what you're talking about, what you're describing are the conditions”Watch the video at 3:10, and before you say this heavily favors the Americans, it automatically supports the Soviets for they used the same technique(the number 1 rated tank is the T-34, a Russian tank)."if you don't believe me that the German army was leaps and bounds ahead of any other in the war”I agree that the German army was a extremely powerful force, but you exaggerate their power. I will use your argument, although I do not agree with it, you said "Operation Barbarossa had failed, without any aid being required”this essentially means that you think the Soviets single handedly defeated the Germans, its hard to say the Germans were leaps in bounds ahead when they were “single Handedly” defeated.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"Britian and France could have managed without them.””Lets see, France engulfed by Germany in a few weeks, Britain’s RAF not putting up much resistance to Lufftwaffe, and being Bombed to bits (example Battle of Britain), it looks like they would have managed very well indeed.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

"Lets see, France engulfed by Germany in a few weeks, Britain’s RAF not putting up much resistance to Lufftwaffe, and being Bombed to bits (example Battle of Britain), it looks like they would have managed very well indeed."Yes I'll admit that the French sort of surrendered... But Britain had started to reconquer land before USA even joined the war, even your example of the Battle of Britain (I can't understand how you can portray it negatively), was a victory that could be considered the turning point of the war.Battle of TarantoBattle of KerenThere are even more examples I could provide that would include victories of China and Russia. While USA helped speed up victory, I will not withdraw myt statement that Britain and the allies could have managed without them.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

“ But Britain had started to reconquer land before USA even joined the war, even your example of the Battle of Britain (I can't understand how you can portray it negatively), was a victory that could be considered the turning point of the war.”Why would you use the Battle of Taranto after i proved the U.S. helped Britain win this battle? Even if you believe that AMerica did not contribute greatly to actually fighting, it is impossible to argue its importance in the war with its supplying of the Allies. Now again, remember what Stalin and Churchill said,if you feel your opinion is better than theirs, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

"Why would you use the Battle of Taranto after i proved the U.S. helped Britain win this battle? Even if you believe that AMerica did not contribute greatly to actually fighting, it is impossible to argue its importance in the war with its supplying of the Allies. Now again, remember what Stalin and Churchill said,if you feel your opinion is better than theirs, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about."I'm not stating that the U.S deserves no credit for the war, I'm just saying that they don't deserve the title of "hero of World War 2", they only joined after the allies started to win. If any country deserves it it should be the British Empire, which lost everything after World War 2.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"If any country deserves it it should be the British Empire, which lost everything after World War 2.”It doesn’t matter how much a country lost, if that is your basis for hero then any european nation could claim to be the hero.What you have been claiming is that the Allies could have won without the U.S. aid, provide a battle than distinctly proves this.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

The British empire invested so much into stopping the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese. That it couldn't afford to maintain or protect it's empire after that, and thus had to give it up. I consider that an achievement when the U.S failed to commit to the war from the start."What you have been claiming is that the Allies could have won without the U.S. aid, provide a battle than distinctly proves this."D-Day, though there are better examples i think it fair to pick one you're definatly going to know about. The U.S involvement was the invasion of 1 beach while Britain and France had to manage 2 each. The american soldiers then proceeded to launch their craft hours before they should have, thus all their amphibious vehicles sunk and most of them got slaughtered. Most of (if not all) the vehicles were provided by Britain. Overall the only help America provided was cannon fodder.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

Their only main contribution was the Pacific fronts, otherwise Britain and France could have managed without them.... France was dead. There wasn't much they could to there.... And Britain could not have done it on their own.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

I think the U.S. was by far the bigger hero in WWII. To start, the Soviets had originally formed a peace treaty with Hitler and planned to split Poland they invaded. That's pretty uncool. Second, Hitler's war (in which the U.S.S.R. was fighting in) only involved Europe, so it was very heroic for the U.S. to help the Allies destroy the Nazi regime in a continent that wasn't even their own. The U.S. also single handedly ended the war in the Pacific, and freed many countries and islands previously under Japanese control. The U.S. also supplied most of the equipment for Allied troops even before they entered the war. Pretty much, the U.S.'s goal was to protect freedom around the world, and it did a damn good job of doing just that. As for the U.S.S.R., instead of freeing the countries they took from Germany, they ruled over them with an iron fist for decades until the U.S. put a stop to that in the 1990's, but that's another story...
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

the Soviets had originally formed a peace treaty with Hitler and planned to split Poland they invaded.Nether Hitler, nor Stalin, ever had any intention of sticking to that treaty. It was only signed because the Germans needed safety for a year or two when conquering Europe, without having to fight on two fronts. And the Soviets signed to give themselves time to arm the country, ready for the inevitable war with Hitler.Hitler's war (in which the U.S.S.R. was fighting in) only involved EuropeOh yeah, it was only the most important front in the entire war, in which the Soviets had to fight on their own for years. Only that important.The U.S. also single handedly ended the war in the Pacific,Nope. They were the leading power, but Britain, Australia and the Netherlands made vital contributions.freed many countries and islands previously under Japanese control.Don't make it sound as if the US was fighting for freedom. They were fighting because of Pearl Harbour.Pretty much, the U.S.'s goal was to protect freedom around the world, and it did a damn good job of doing just that. ._.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh that's a great joke!As for the U.S.S.R., instead of freeing the countries they took from Germany, they ruled over them with an iron fist for decades until the U.S. put a stop to that in the 1990's, but that's another story...The US did not stop the USSR at all. What history books are you reading?
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"The US did not stop the USSR at all. What history books are you reading?"Your joking right? The U.S. ended the Soviet Union in the cold war by spending money on the military at levels the soviets could not ectype, eventually causing economic collapse for the union, sorta why Ronald Reagan was so popular.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

That's different to the US stopping the USSR. Stopping implies direct action against one nation's plans. Besides, I would rather say it was the west in general rather than America that caused the collapse of the USSR.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

Neither. It was the UK who valiantly fought to the end. I know this is a bit biased coming from a Brit, but still. Anyway, I decided that out of the two the USA did the most.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

I tend to agree with the majority of what you said. It is quite startling how many Americans appear to think that the US was the only hope the Allies had, and that the entire war was single handedly won by Uncle Sam. US action was more like the final, and biggest, nail in the Nazi coffin. They tend to forget that the US didn't give that much of a damn about Europe compared to the Pacific. But the idea of the Soviet juggernaut steamrolling the Nazi's is quite misinformed. As the article you provided states, the Nazi's were dominating the USSR for the first few months of the war. But I must disagree with the reasoning behind Russia's recuperation. Whilst the logistical effort was undoubtedly important, I would actually value Hitler's errors as the most turning point.It is not known by the majority that Hitler was quite ill from about 1942 onwards. He suffered from Parkinsons, and he was taking all sorts of remedial drugs. In most situations, the leader would have to hand over responsibilities to his delegates. But Hitler did the reverse: all of his delegates were simply ignored or stripped of their power. Hitler believed he knew what was best, and demanded that no decisions be made without his approval. However, Hitler would spend many days in bed, sometimes during crucial hours where instant reaction was needed. You can see how this would be quite problematic. So when Russia was regaining strength, the German forces were helpless without Hitler.It should also be pointed out that Hitler wasn't a particularly great tactician. Make no mistake about it, Adolf Hitler was, at least in my opinion, one of the greatest politicians the world has ever seen. He had a simply unparalleled way of seducing the public. But despite winning the Iron Cross in WW1, he made many poor decisions. His logistical actions were quite frankly awful. The Wehrmacht was, to put it bluntly, fucked. Hitler gravely underestimated the sheer numbers the Red Army had, and despite the quantities of killing Germany could carry out, there was always an extra soviet force waiting for them. It could also be blamed on the fact that Hitler's knowledge of Soviet government was at best average. He had no idea how flexible the system was (contrary to popular belief), and completely failed to realise the speed at which the Soviets could carry out transfers.To conclude, I believe that the USSR's role was indeed a crucial one, but not really caused by the USSR, themselves. I won't dispute the will the Soviet forces showed (although one could argue that Germany's "never surrender" strategy shows why sheer will can actually be a drawback, but that's another issue), but they had a lot of help from Hitler's decisions. If you're looking for an objective answer, you could argue for either side. I'm still disappointed at the lack of mention of Finland though. Check out my post on the other side, they're the true heroes of the war!
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

It is quite startling how many Americans appear to think that the US was the only hope the Allies hadIt's also quite startling to see how many Americans believe Obama is the antichrist, but that doesn't stop us (24% of republicans).They tend to forget that the US didn't give that much of a damn about Europe compared to the Pacific.You would be wrong there. We gave a very large damn.Nazi's were dominating the USSR for the first few months of the war.In the USSR's defense, so was mother nature.The Wehrmacht was, to put it bluntly, fucked.I would disagree to an extent in regards to the Western Front.I believe that the USSR's role was indeed a crucial one, but not really caused by the USSR, themselvesThat is going way too far from your previous acknowledgments about the German military stratagem in the east. The USSR had 35,000,000 forces. That is not a small number. That is more than the United States (16,000,000) and Germany (18,000,000) combined.I'm still disappointed at the lack of mention of Finland though. Check out my post on the other side, they're the true heroes of the war!By that logic, I would say Belgium deserves mention.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

You would be wrong there. We gave a very large damn.In comparison to the Pacific? Don't get me wrong, the amount of US aid poured into the European campaigns shows that they were concerned with Europe, but Japan were seen as the US' main enemy, no? American involvement in the Pacific was surely greater than their involvement in Europe.In the USSR's defense, so was mother nature.I'm not sure what you're referring to here, the Russian Winter? My statement was about Nazi domination of the war before the Russian Winter kicked in.I would disagree to an extent in regards to the Western Front.I was referring to the Eastern front. That is to say, the German forces fighting in the East were, to put it bluntly, fucked.That is going way too far from your previous acknowledgments about the German military stratagem in the east. The USSR had 35,000,000 forces. That is not a small number. That is more than the United States (16,000,000) and Germany (18,000,000) combined.Your point is...By that logic, I would say Belgium deserves mention.After reading up on Belgian involvement, I will agree with you. All hail Belgium.But before we start listing countries that deserve a mention, I'd like to point out that my post was a little bit of a joke. I only did it because of my friend, who is a fierce Finnish patriot, and never shuts the fuck up about his country's involvement. So yea.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

Don't get me wrong, the amount of US aid poured into the European campaigns shows that they were concerned with Europe, but Japan were seen as the US' main enemy, no? Don't get me wrong, the amount of US aid poured into the European campaigns shows that they were concerned with Europe, but Japan were seen as the US' main enemy, no?Truman stated that Europe was of much more concern to him than the pacific. We deployed 22 Army divisions to the Pacific compared to 76 in Europe/Mediterranean. The Navy deployment was higher in the Pacific; however, our army was more than double the size of our naval involvement.Your point is...To say that was the reason they lost is to ignore the sheer forces involved. The germans were severely outnumbered.I only did it because of my friend, who is a fierce Finnish patriot, and never shuts the fuck up about his country's involvement.So a Finish Axmiester?
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

Truman stated that Europe was of much more concern to him than the pacific. We deployed 22 Army divisions to the Pacific compared to 76 in Europe/Mediterranean. The Navy deployment was higher in the Pacific; however, our army was more than double the size of our naval involvement.Fair enough. To say that was the reason they lost is to ignore the sheer forces involved. The germans were severely outnumbered.Numbers do not win wars. The Wehrmacht was the most feared armed forces of any nation during World War 2. One German soldier was worth 2 of any other. Whilst the Russians had the numbers, the Germans had the weapons (for the majority of the war), the training, and the morale to take down any nation on the planet (maybe not the US, but it certainly would have been close).So a Finish Axmiester?I'm gonna sound stupid here and ask what or who Axmiester is?
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

Numbers do not win wars.I agree. But when you outnumber the enemy almost 3:1, you have a slight advantage.I'm gonna sound stupid here and ask what or who Axmiester is?I lobe the UK. Don't get me wrong. One of my favorite countries (and ranked above the US), but this guy is truly a blathering idiot. The British equivalent of the stereotypical dumb, Christian, bible-thumping, gun-toting, republican, uneducated, drunk redneck. Axmeister
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

But when you outnumber the enemy almost 3:1, you have a slight advantage.But when the enemy is superior in every other measurable way, the advantage is cut completely. Think of it like this: who would you back in a fight? The team of Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking and Victoria Beckham; or Chuck Norris on steroids?I lobe the UK. Don't get me wrong. One of my favorite countries (and ranked above the US), but this guy is truly a blathering idiot. The British equivalent of the stereotypical dumb, Christian, bible-thumping, gun-toting, republican, uneducated, drunk redneck. AxmeisterOh, I know him. He is quite... patriotic. But my friend is isn't as... "special" as Axmeister.XD
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"The British equivalent of the stereotypical dumb, Christian, bible-thumping, gun-toting, republican, uneducated, drunk redneck. Axmeister"You are an imbecile who doesn't acknowledge evidence of any kind and slanders against your enemies.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

Pretty sure they crushed most of Germany's army, and pushed straight through to Berlin, killing most of the Axis' forces.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

I any case it was a combined effort, but the Soviets were the ones going toe to toe with the Germans fighting over their homeland. the Americans came in at the end and were a huge boon. They were the waking giant, but still I thin the Soviets had by far the toughest part of the war.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

Nobody; the title 'hero' is subjective to opinion.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

russians had the best snipers in stalingrad that won them the war