STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII!

"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. " 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. Additionally, let us look at some statistics of the manpower involved in both battles. In both the Battle of Stalingrad and Kursk, over 2 million soldiers (total) were involved [1, 2 respectively]. At the Battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets and Germans together managed around 1,500 tanks [1] while the Battle of Kursk witnessed over 6,000 tanks [2]. Additionally, there were around 2,300 planes involved in the Battle of Stalingrad [1] while there were over 4,000 involved in the Battle of Kursk [2]. 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. Furthermore, the bombing of Dresden, arguably the bombing that damaged Germany the most, did not occur until 1945 [3]. Other bombings did not happen in significant scale until June of 1943 [4]. This date is entirely too close to the Kursk offensive/Operation Citadel and thus is unlikely to have had a significant effect on Germany's warmaking effort during the Battle. " 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. .. . "My opponent admits that the 800,000 casualties were Axis ones in general and not just German ones and then goes right back to claiming that Germany took 850,000 casualties. This does not go together. Books are generally considered reliable sources while Wikipedia is not; however, I will not reference books again unless I can find the section I am quoting online, in which case, I will cite it. "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. "My opponent claims that the Allies were pushing through Italy. This is false. The Allies did not invade Italy until September of 1943 [5]. This occured after the Battle of Kursk, which ended in July/August. I have also demonstrated the buildup of German tanks, aircraft, and ammunition, as well as their adequete manpower for fighting a war. Had Germany triumphed at Kursk, they might have even had time to redirect some units into Italy and prevented an Allied occupation. That the US produced more than both Germany and the Soviet Union is irrelevant to the debate resolution. "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? " What would have made the defeat at Kursk (had the Soviet Union been defeated) different was that this defeat would have followed several major victories (Moscow and Stalingrad). It could have led the Red Army to believe these victories were flukes, and that they were in for another string of defeats. It's true that there was not a major alliance between the Soviet Union and the West; however, the Soviet Union was largely counting on the West to open a second front. Had Germany won at Kursk, the Soviet Union would have severed what little relationship it had with the West, giving the West even less reason to open a second front against Germany. The aerial combat casualties in Kursk was regard to a single day, not over an extended period of time like the Battle of Britain [6]. There are conflicting sources regarding the number of German casualties. Regardless, the number of casualties does not define the importance of a battle in and of itself. If it was the Battle of Stalingrad that convinced Turkey not to join, wouldn't Turkey have joined the Allies much sooner? Nothing in your source indicates that Turkey stayed out because of Stalingrad. My opponent concedes my point regarding Hitler's trust in his generals and strategy; please extend it. I look forward to my opponent's responses in the final round! This has been a great debate thus far, and I anticipate the finale! [1] . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...[2] . http://www.historynet.com... [3] . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...[4] . http://history.howstuffworks.com...[5] . http://news.bbc.co.uk... [6] . http://www.battleofkursk.org...