STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII!

I will refute my opponent, clarify some of my points, and crystallise my case. "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. "Clearly the Soviets considered the site important enough to send so many troops to. As I have sourced in previous rounds, there were approximately 2 million troops there total. This includes Germans. "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. "My opponent has never stated German casualties were as low as 50,000 in the debate. In response to my source regarding casualties in Round 3, my opponent said they had lost at most "half that number" which would be 250,000. "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]. " First, my opponent says Germany can not have had similar manpower. Then he admits that perhaps they did. As I have sourced and argued earlier, at both Stalingrad and Kursk, there were around 2 million troops fighting. So manpower was similar in both battles, but Kursk involved far more tanks and planes than Stalingrad. "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. " I argued, and my opponent dropped this argument, that, had Germany won at Kursk, they would have had time to reroute troops into Italy and perhaps the Allies would not have conquered it - at least, not in 1943. "This piece of information is relevant because it shows how insignificant my opponents talk about German production of tanks and planes has been. "Again, the debate is not about which side produced more. I am not comparing Germany to other nations; I am comparing German production in 1943 to prove that it was superior to German production in 1942. This is actually another reason the Battle of Kursk was more or equally important. As I argued in Round 2, the Germans used several new tanks, planes, and weapons. All of these cost money to manufacture. At Stalingrad, the Germans were still using older technologies. The defeat at Kursk demonstrated Germany's need to expend even more resources and put a larger dent in the German economy than Stalingrad. My opponent makes a valid point regarding Soviet oil. However, he saved this particular line of argumentation for the last round, where I cannot provide any sources to refute it. I can only say that, had the Soviets lost Stalingrad, the Western Allies could have provided them with oil (my opponent's claim that they could not have provided enough has no evidence to back it). Had they lost Kursk, the Western Allies would not have been willing to send them oil, as the Soviet Union would have severed its tenuous relationship with them. My opponent unfairly reintroduces the concept of saving the British Empire in the last round, where I cannot provide any new sources. I do wonder how Germany triumphing at Stalingrad would allow them to invade the Middle East, especially if, as my opponent claimed, the Allied forces were already in North Africa. "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. "I did not have to prove this was an impossibility; it was my opponent's burden of proof as PRO, and he concedes that I have disproved it. "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. "My opponent's first sentence supports my case. Furthermore, the Soviets would still have maintained the numerical advantage, even if they had lost at Stalingrad. If Germany had won at Kursk, Germany would have had the space and breathing room to reinforce its troops again with soldiers, tanks, planes, and weapons. They could have sent the remaining 1/3 of their army into Russia or moved troops out to defend Italy. As a summary:My opponent completely dropped my argument regarding Hitler's mistrust of his generals and military strategy. He concedes this point. My opponent concedes my argument that, had the Soviets lost Kursk, their alliance with the West would have ended. My opponent concedes that the Soviets would have been more demoralised by a loss at Kursk because it would have made their other victories seem like flukes. My opponent concedes the Germans having time to defend Italy had they won at Kursk. The Battle of Kursk was Germany's last major offensive in the East. Had they won, they would have regained the offensive and could easily have turned the tide of the Eastern Front, making Stalingrad relatively worthless. Germany had to invest more resources into supplying new weapons, tanks, and planes for Kursk than it did for Stalingrad. A Germany victory at Kursk meant Germany still had every possibility of winning the war. The German defeat at Kursk and not Stalingrad demonstrated that Germany's hopes of victory were nearly impossible.