STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII!

I will first reply to my opponent's arguments. "Now, my opponent has conceded that the Battle of Kursk was the largest tank battle in World War II. This could hardly be the case if Germany was as weak as my opponent implied it was. In fact, there is substantial evidence demonstrating that Germany was stronger in 1943 than in 1942." It took Germany several months to prepare the Kursk offensive. Hitler kept delaying Operation Citadel. It took time for Germany to get new tanks to the front. Tanks were unimportant during the battle of Stalingrad. By 1943 Germany was not as strong as it had been in 1942. Western Allied bombings had reduced German cities and factories to rubble. German manpower was decreasing. Stalingrad had demoralized Germany. "Firstly, we encounter the problem of using Wikipedia as a source. The Germans did not suffer 850,000 casualties at Stalingrad. Total Axis losses, which includes Romanians, Italians, and Hungarians as well as Germans, numbered 800,000 ." Forgive me. I should have specified that the 800,000 or so casualties were axis casualties, not just German casualties. Since my opponent does not see Wikipedia as a reliable source, I will not use it. However it would be nice if my opponent did not use books since you cannot see the words written. Back to casualties. Germany suffered around 850,000 casualties including almost 100,000 captured. The true number of axis casualties at Stalingrad is not exactly known. Different sources will provide different numbers. "In 1942, Germany produced 5,700 medium and light tanks. In 1943, this number soared to 11,900." That is because Hitler needed these tanks to break through defensive lines in the Soviet defenses at Kursk more than they needed them at Stalingrad. Stalingrad was a battle which was fought between soldiers.[1] "Additionally, from 1942 to 1943, production of German planes doubled, and ammunition had increased three-fold." However Germany's supply of troops that were trained well in actually using that ammunition had not increase three-fold. It had decreased. "Germany would have regained the offensive in the Eastern Front. It is entirely possible that Germany could have turned the tide back in their favour despite their defeat at Stalingrad. " Indeed. It would be possible. But would it be likely? Germany would still be heavily outnumbered on all fronts. The Western Allies were pushing through Italy where Germany was heavily outnumbered. Germany couldn't fight a war of attrition for long. The country simply didn't have the resources and manpower. My opponent has shown that Germany could still have won WWII if they had won at Kursk. However he has not really proved that this was likely. The United States alone produced more than Germany and the USSR did during WWII. Had Germany won at Kursk, they would have postponed defeat. Maybe Germany could have negotiated a peace. But considering the fact that at Kursk alone, Germany was outnumbered 2:1, they would not have been able to reach Moscow. "The Russians would have been demoralized [had Germany won the battle of Kursk]." Of course they would have been demoralized. Just like they were demoralized after countless defeats at Minsk, Kiev, the Crimea, Kharkov, and many other battles. Did they surrender? Before the battle of Kursk ever happened, the Red Army had suffered around 15 million casualties. Would another 2 million make much of a difference? "Had Germany prevailed at Kursk, any relationship between the Soviet Union and the Western Allies would have shattered." Please elaborate. Are you saying that if Germany had won, the Western Allies would have made peace with Germany? Or perhaps the Soviet Union would have made peace? "The Germans, on the other hand, would have been reinvigorated. They would have won a significant victory, regained the offensive, and seen the collapse of an alliance between the West and the Soviet Union." There was never really much of an alliance to begin with. The western powers and the Soviets were fighting two completely separate wars with completely different goals. "The Battle of Kursk, aside from being the largest tank battle, was also the day that saw the single most casualties with regard to aerial combat." The link that you posted for this source could not be found. Perhaps you posted it incorrectly. I would argue that the battle of Britain involved more aerial casualties than Kursk did. "As a result of losing the Battle of Kursk, Germany alone suffered around 500,000 casualties (not counting tanks or planes)." German casualties during the battle of Kursk were not this high. At the most, German casualties during the battle of Kursk were half that number.[2][3] "According to the Soviets, the Germans alone lost 500,000 men " killed, wounded or captured " though other estimates are more conservative. The Soviets went on to liberate most of Ukraine in what was to be a major turning point in the war." 500,000 German casualties were the statistics given by the Soviets. Most likely they were greatly exaggerated. [5] "I ask for evidence that the reason Turkey didn't enter the war was because of the German defeat at Stalingrad." Turkey wanted to gain as much as possible from WWII. It gave Germany resources and traded with Germany. In 1941 Turkey signed a neutrality pact. In 1944 it declared war on Germany upon seeing that Germany had been losing. This is because Turkey would not have had as much to gain if it had been neutral the entire war. [6] If Turkey saw that the allies were losing then they would have declared war. Sources: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... http://www.amazon.com... http://www.historyplace.com... http://www.amazon.com... http://www.militaryeducation.org... http://www.hri.org...