STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII!

"Hitler did keep delaying Operation Citadel, which was a significant factor in why Germany lost the Battle of Kursk, as the delays allowed the Soviet Union to strengthen its forces." This is one way to think about this. On the other hand, had Hitler not waited those extra months, maybe Germany would not have been strong enough for the successful offensive. Had Hitler not waited those extra months, there would not have been anywhere near 2 million Soviet soldiers in the Kursk salient and the battle would have been minor and insignificant. My opponent then talks about how the battle of Kursk was a much more significant battle since there were more tanks and planes involved than there had been during Stalingrad. I agree with these statistics. However as I pointed out in the previous rounds, German casualties during the battle of Kursk may have been as low as 50,000. Compare this with Stalingrad where Germany suffered a staggering 800,000 casualties. "Germany not only maintained the similar manpower of 1942 in 1943; it also upped the number of planes and tanks. This also disproves my opponent's claim that there were not enough soldiers to use the increased ammunition. " This is difficult to believe. The axis forces lost around 800,000 soldiers at Stalingrad alone. And this was only one small section of the eastern front. Besides this, hundreds of thousands of Italian and German forces had been defeated in Africa in 1942. Perhaps Germany managed to increase production in planes/tanks but manpower went down significantly. I'm not sure how my opponent can say that Germany maintained similar manpower in 1943. And perhaps there were enough soldiers for Germany. But some of Germany's best divisions had been destroyed in 1942. After Stalingrad, Germany began to look at old men and young boys to help fight the war[1]. My opponent also states that Germany was bombed more heavily after Kursk had already occurred. However Germany had been bombed even before that. As early as 1940, Britain had been bombing German cities heavily. "My opponent claims that the Allies were pushing through Italy. This is false. The Allies did not invade Italy until September of 1943. This occured after the Battle of Kursk, which ended in July/August." I did say this. But I didn't really specify anything. The fact is that the allies managed to defeat Italy in 1943. I never said that the allies were pushing through Italy during the time that Kursk happened. "That the US produced more than both Germany and the Soviet Union is irrelevant to the debate resolution. " This piece of information is relevant because it shows how insignificant my opponents talk about German production of tanks and planes has been. In addition to this, the USSR was producing more than Germany throughout WWII. This explains why the Soviets managed to outnumber Germany in both tanks and planes during the battle of Kursk.[3] I think I will simply conclude now. During the battle of Kursk, Germany suffered far fewer casualties than during the battle of Stalingrad. However my opponent claims that the superior amount of tanks and planes Germany lost at Kursk makes up for this. In this case, I guess it all comes down to the importance of these two battles in general. The German encirclement at Stalingrad forced Von Kleist and his forces to retreat from the Caucuses. Had Germany won at Stalingrad, they would have sent reinforcements south and quickly overwhelmed the Soviet forces in the Caucuses. My opponent failed to sufficiently respond to my arguments about Soviet oil. He made claims that Germany was not in need of extra oil yet. This may be true. However what would have happened to the Soviets if Germany captured that oil? 95% of Soviet oil came from the caucuses [video 5:08]. What would the Soviets have done without this oil? How would Soviet tanks and planes work? Oil from the US and Britain would not have been anywhere near enough to save help the Soviets fight on. The Soviets would have had to make peace. Most likely, the Soviets would have lost the war entirely. One more point that Con failed to respond to was my mention of the battle of Stalingrad saving the British empire from the German army. As I stated before, a breakthrough at Stalingrad would have allowed Germany to capture the vital British oil fields in the Middle East. Apart from this, German forces could open a second front in Africa to help Rommel, push into India, and link up with Japan. Britain had weak defenses in these areas. I failed to prove that Turkey would have joined the axis powers if Germany had won at Stalingrad. However my opponent failed to prove that this was not an impossibility. Final words: On a global perspective, I have shown that Stalingrad was much more significant. Had Germany won at Stalingrad, they could have conquered the world. Had Germany won at Kursk, this would not have been the case. The Soviet defenses at Kursk were the largest and strongest in history. Besides this, the Soviets had a 2:1 numerical advantage. Even if Germany had won at Kursk, they would have most likely suffered so many casualties that they would be unable to advance all the way to Moscow. Even if Germany won at Kursk, they would have been outnumbered. Had Germany won at Stalingrad, they would have had the numerical advantage. I hope voters will not take a point off for my conduct for using a documentary film. I did specify the exact location of my information. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I have debated this same topic about 15 times and never lost. This is the hardest one so far. Sources: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk... http://www.world-war-2.info... http://stalinsmoustache.wordpress.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...