The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
TheHitchslap
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Most Important Battles

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,804 times Debate No: 24293
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (34)
Votes (5)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

Subject
In this debate, both debaters will present a battle each round.

Rules
1. There are not attacks or rebbutals, basically you just present battle, explain why you think it is most important, and then continue to the next round. Whoever has the most important battles will be decided by the voters.
2. A siege is not a battle!
TheHitchslap

Con

I hereby agree to terms of no attack, and only explanations of significant battles
I also agree that a seize is NOT a battle
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

Battle of Stalingrad

This battle was a key turning point in World War 2. Both armies generally started out with 100,000 to 200,000 men and that eventually grew as each side (the Axis Powers and the Soviet Union) brought up reinforcements in an epic winter fight. The Soviet leader, Josef Stalin, recently issued a "not a step back" order. This meant that the Soviet troops would not retreat in the face of German, Italian, Romania, Hungarian, and Croatian Armies. Eventually the Axis grew to a force of 700,000 troops fighting over a city that seemed to have no significant advantage as it lay in ruins. German leader Adolf Hitler seemed to only want the city for political reasons (and a striking personal blow to Stalin as it was named after him). The battle seemed to be growing to a standstill. However, the Soviets were catching and proved that their armies had far more numbers. They grew to over 1,140,000 men and gathered many troops on the flanks commanded by Russian marshal Georgy Zhukov. Mostly ill-equipped troops from Germany's allies were positioned on these flanks and these were easy targets against the hoards of the Soviet Union. The Soviets eventually encircled the entire German force. Around 250,000 men of the German force was encircled.

The German commander, General Frederich Paulus, asked Hitler for permission to withdraw and punch a hole through the ring of Soviet troops surrounding him, but Hitler refused. He was convinced by German Air Marshal Hermann Goring that the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) could supply his troops. This proved to be not true. The men encircled needed 500 tons of supplies per day, but the Luftwaffe just simply did not have the planes and the fuel to launch such a massive airlift. Soviert aircraft and the Russian blizzards contributed to this. So Hitler gathered 2 German tank divisions to punch a hole from the outside. These two divisions were commanded by Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, one of Germany's best generals. However, as the Manstein pressed his way through the Soviet lines to get to Paulus, he received a report that Soviet troops had breached an allied Italian army to the north. This breach was part of a full attack to cut off all German troops in southern Russia. Manstein had no choice, but to break off and deal with this new threat. With his withdrawal went the last hope of the encirled Germans. Finally in February 1943, after months of fighting, Paulus surrendered his force.

This battle was an important one because of the size of both armies and the outcome. For most of the war, Hitler's armies seemed invincible, but now they had lost. It would be one of the last major German offensives on the Eastern Front (the others being at Kharkov and Kursk). For most of the rest of the war, the Germans were fighting on the defensive in the Eastern Front. This also gave the Western Allies more advantages as Hitler was forced to divide his forces on two fronts.

For more you can watch the videos I have provided.





;
TheHitchslap

Con

The Battle of Waterloo

The Emperor Napoleon's downfall in an unfortunate battle due to mental illness, which would lead to the fall of Napoleon himself, and the French First Empire. The french would never reach the heights as an empire after Napoleon ever again.
The Lesson to be taken home here is 1) attention to detail within a battle, and 2) biting off more than you can chew. Napoleon simply had too many enemies when fighting the Seventh Coalition. It would be his greatest army of 125,000 men consisting of french veteran volunteers and his elite guard. This would also be the first and only battle in which Napoleon's elite would be defeated thus signaling a defeat to the rest of the army. His army failed him: Grouchy allowed the Prussians to join the British, Marshal Ney was shell-shocked and forgot to send in Calvary with foot soldiers to break through the British 'squares'. The ground was wet, forcing Napoleon to wait.

The decisive ally victory stopped the violence in Europe that had been going on for years since the French Revolution.
Even the Waterloo medal would be the first to be pressed from a machine signaling a great technological change, and the first medal to be passed down to next-of-kin should a soldier fighting in those battles get KIA. This tradition has carried even in todays military.

Some videos:
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

Battle of Vienna

This battle is somewhat like the famous battle of Tours (732), but in this case, the less famous battle of Vienna was far more close. Once again the Muslims were on the move in 1683 to claim all of Europe under the flag of the Ottoman Empire. Intially, the Ottomans were trying to siege Vienna, but this actually turned into a battle as things went on. Why? The Ottomans kept dallying and waited to long and an epic battle took place. Basically their commander, Mustafa Pasha, had a force of over 130,000 Ottoman troops. Vienna was protected by 15,000 Germans. Pasha lost his window to attack and now fought on the defensive when a relief force arrived of 100,000 Germans and Poles. What this battle proves is that you should not waste time like Pasha did. Had he attacked, Vienna would had no doubt fallen and he would have had stronghold for the Ottomans to gain reinforcements. The Ottomans lost 20,000 men while the Europeans lost 4,500. For more watch this:

TheHitchslap

Con

The Battle of Koniggratz

Largest land battle in history (over 9,000 dead). Fought between Otto Von Bismarck's Prussia vs Austria and Saxony. Austria was a major European power at this time and the results of Prussian victory forever changed that. Not only did the battle forecast the unification of the Germanic states into Germany (Bismarck splits Germanic Confederation by giving the Northern States to Poland and South independence with an alliance) but the use of technology in war. Prussians also won due to 3 new inventions: Trains, Watches, and Carbines. The Prussian officers no longer needed to be on the battlefield either, thus showing more modern warfare. This would also be a catalysis for the French to attack Germany only to be badly defeated in the Franco-Prussian War and unify Germany. Bismarcks leadership is also seen as a setting for the foundation that Adolf Hitler would be surrounded with. Also this was the first battle in which War plans take effect and battle plans are communicated much easier. These would remain key elements up until about World War 2 thus proving huge historical significance!

Some videos:
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Pro

Battle of Gettysburg

This battle is considered the turning point in the American Civil War. Just like Stalingrad, the battle started out with a rougly small force. A Union cavalry brigade commanded by Brigadier General John Buford and a division of Condeferate infantry commanded by Brigadier General J. Johnson Pettigrew. His superior officer, Major General Henry Heth, wrote in his memoirs that he ordered Pettigrew to move to Gettysburg to search for supplies in the town, especially shoes.

The Confederates pushed the Union Cavalry back, but the a Union infantry vanguard arrived to help. By then end of the first day, Union troops were pushed back to Cemetery Ridge, south of the town of Gettysburg. Confederate commander General Richard Ewell decided not to attack.

The next day Confederate General Robert E. Lee arrived to commanded the Southern forces. The Union troops were commanded by General George Meade. Slowly Union troops were coming in to reinforce the high ground and they had up to 90,000 men. Lee had 70,000 men. He believed that because the Union forces were still stragling in, he could attack them. He ordered General Ewell on the right flank of Cemtery Ridge to attack when he thought it was practical. However, this was a mistake as Ewell was not directly ordered not to attack. Ewell did not really understand his orders and decided not to attack. During the day, Union General Dan Sickles marched his corps off the ridge allowing Confedrate troops commanded by General James Longstreet. The Union troops were forced back to a hill called Little Round Top. Fighting occured all over the hill, but eventually a bayonet charge led by the Union's 20th Maine forced the Confederates back. The fighting at the hill remained one of the most epic moments in Civil War history.

By the third day, General Longstreet talked to Lee about disengaging the enemy and moving south to threaten Washington DC. This would force the Union off the ridge, but Lee refused and instead ordered Brigadier General George Pickett to attack on the left flank of the ridge. Over 13,000 troops led by Pickett marched in close ranks toward the Union ridge. Union musket fire and cannon fire devastated the Confederate troops. They made it all the way to the ridge, but could not press on and the force retreated. On the right flank, Confederate cavalry commander J.E.B. Stuart launched a charge to outflank the Union troops, but Union cavalry commanded by General George Armstrong Custer countercharged and defeated Stuart's cavalry. The Battle of Gettysburg was over. Both sides lost around 23,000 men.
Had Lee won this battle he probably could have won the war for the CSA. This key moment showed the consequences of attacking uphill and being outnumbered. Tatics like this would in the end cause the overall defeat of the South.

Here are some videos.



TheHitchslap

Con

Operation Neptune / Invasion of Normandy / Operation Overlord / Omaha Beach

The significance is pretty straight forward and clear. It marks the first time the Germans are unable to advance as the allied forces teamed up to liberate Vinchy France from the Axis. Not only did it put the Germans on defense, but solidify US efforts into WW2 and alliances with Canada, U.K, Belgium, Netherlands, Australia, Free France, and Poland. France would eventually become liberated, and the Soviets would eventually reach the grave of Adolf Hitler. This is the mark of a sharp turn in history, as the Germans would no longer be able to take over the British by force. This battle is the epitome of friendships, teamwork, and more importantly hard work. Many men never made it to the beaches, facing massive machine gun fire after dismounting from their boats. It would also prove the cunning of Dwight Eisenhower as a general. Historians generally agree that this is one of the most significant battles in American history as the Germans were thus fighting a two front war with the Americans and Russians.
Debate Round No. 4
1Historygenius

Pro

Spanish Armada

In August 1588, one of the largest fleets ever made was put together. The Spanish Armada of over 130 warships were poised to invade Great Britain. Britain's navy had only about 50 ships to defend the island. Each Spanish ship also held some 300 soldiers. This was to board the British ships and quickly conquer them. The British on the other hand preferred to fire their guns from a distance where they had the advantage. Amazingly, the expert British sea tactics defeated the Spanish. The Spanish liked to keep their navy together, but the British formed lines and hammered their close formations. The Spanish could barely turn in their tight formations. The British even built fire ships to destroy the Spanish ships. This led the Spanish to retreat in one of the worst in history. The Spanish were forced to move all across Great Britain and a series of storms devastated their fleet. They would lose a total of 66 ships that were either sunk, captured, wrecked, or scuttled. Had they been victorious it might had changed the course of history as we know it.

For more watch this video.

;
TheHitchslap

Con

The Battle of Austerlitz

Napoleons 'perfect battle' in which absolutely CRUSHED the Russian and Austrian forces within Europe. This battle alone ended the Third Coalition against Napoleon, solidified his alliance with Prussia at that time. It was the first and only (to the best of my knowledge anyways) time in history in which a standing army used stealth tactics to march up a hill for cover via fog. Simple and sweet. Napoleon simply drive his forces up the Pratzen heights after giving it to the Czar (he thought Napoleon was crazy) splitting the Russians in half and sending the rest of the army fleeing. This would have Napoleon at the peak of his Empire. Furthermore, Napoleon was outnumbered by 15 thousand men yet only lost 7 thousand, while the Russians and Austrians lost 27,000. However, the Russians also lost 50 standards (or flags) which was a great dishonor to those batallions whom lost them. The battle would end the Holy Roman Empire, and establish the confederation of the Rhine.

Videos here:
Debate Round No. 5
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Classless comment
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Debate over, I still appear to be the history master of this website.
Posted by aero36 4 years ago
aero36
Thanks for this, it'll be something interesting to read and watch one afternoon.
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
This much I can agree too
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
The Russians lost about 10 million soldiers on the eastern front, of which approx. 4 million died as POW's (almost all Russian pow's died in German captivity). In addition to that about 20 million Russian civilians died.
Germany lost in total 5.5 million dead soldiers and 1.8 million dead civilians. In addition to that about 8 million German soldiers were captured. On the eastern front approx. 3.5-4 million German soldiers died (around 75%). At the end of the war, the Russians held about 3 million German POW's, Americans held about 4 million (of which they transferred 1 million after the war to the Russians), and the british held about 1 million German POW's.

So in comparison between the Allies and the Soviets, the Soviets had it harder and they were still winning. Chances are even if D-Day did not happen Stalin would still be on the gates of Berlin. The war would end. This could be shown as early as a year before D-Day when the Germans were on full retreat after Kursk and the Allies were making their way up Italy. The only benefit of D-Day was that it increased the ending of the war, but that is all. By then the defeat of Germany was inevitable.
So the biggest losses of the Germans were indeed on the eastern front, but if you also take pow's into account, losses are almost matched.
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Your right that the conference was in 1942, so I apologize about the communication in terms of using that as a primary source however, killing the Jews was the plan all along. The first concentration camp in Germany known as Dachau was opened in 1933. So I would argue that in fact it was the plan all along. I realize that it has strayed away but I'm backing up my source and trying to show that D-Day was a key victory and that it did not come easy, nor would they simply have won. Furthermore, sorry but your going to have to do better than a set of overly-patriotic bloggers who think they are history geniuses mad because the show thought 'What if the US lost?'. The audience is much more intelligent than that. It is simply not a source, now if you had say .. the PRODUCERS of the show or the network of the show I'd love to hear it, but that is not a source, those blogs are simply opinions with no foundations (from what I have seen).
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
The Wannsee Protocol was in the war. He was largely discussing before that when the Madagascar plan was abandoned due to how the naval war was going. The Wannsee Protocol was never the original plan. Originally, the first plan was to simply force the Jews out of Germany. The review clearly says that attacks launched against the Jews would hopefully leave. When that did not become clear the Madagascar Plan was formed and then in 1942 when it clear that none of this could have that was when they had the meeting in Wannsee to discuss what to do with the Jews. Bear in mind that what you are saying has nothing to do with the previous World War 2 comments you made.

For more reviews everyone which explains why the show was a complete fail and they will hopefully not make another one until they get their facts right:

http://www.dslreports.com...
http://alternatehistoryweeklyupdate.blogspot.com...
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Jews, blacks being there, he is right they wouldn't but it is not contradicting it becomes pretty clear that this was for educational purposes to show the audience what Hitler stood for. His argument is invalid right there. (Oh and PS even Austria had a Nazi party with Hitler's permission so it is plausible for the US to have one too if they were conquered.) He said that Nazi Germany was not about the extermination of the Jews. Wrong! As I have shown yes they were (Wanssee protocol) and I also did a paper on this in university. The two things that separate Nazi Germany from Bismark Era was Nazi's course of action towards the Jews (extermination while antisemitism was still alive in Bismark it lacked popular support) and an aggressive foreign policy causing WW2. German population decreased because of the hatred of Jews, and as a result people fearing persecution NOT because they simply wanted to leave. If you married a Jew you too were subjected to being killed, same for political ideology against Nazi's, the elderly, the mentally incompetent, etc... Shall I continue? Your source is unreliable! It did happen based on a long planned policy ... again Wanssee protocol ... I can keep going if you'd like ...
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Okay first of all the reviews are wrong:
The commentator stated that Nazi Germany would be 'happy' with Jews simply leaving. Anyone reading the Wansee Protocol (or better known as the 'Final Solution to the Jewish Problem') know this is false, especially when concentration camps were set up. This is similar to being a holocaust denier. Hitler outlined all the Jews living in EUROPE, not just near the border countries but EUROPE to rid them of their Jews. Also we know that it even states "The work concerned with emigration was, later on, not only a German problem, but also a problem with which the authorities of the countries to which the flow of emigrants was being directed would have to deal. Financial difficulties, such as the demand by various foreign governments for increasing sums of money to be presented at the time of the landing, the lack of shipping space, increasing restriction of entry permits, or the cancelling of
such, increased extraordinarily the difficulties of emigration." In other words it would be cheaper and easier to simply gas the poor guys! A fundamental mistake not backed up by any source upon the reviewer and thus already with simple info readily available on the net his integrity is in question.
http://www.writing.upenn.edu...
Nazi fashion? Okay sure I'll give it to him. Annexed states? No under Nazi rule the US would be a 'puppet state' similar to what Napoleon did with Italy, and oddly enough Hitler with Italy. Thus they WOULD have their own government under Nazi party but would answer to Germany. To annex would be to separate from Germany which wouldn't happen if the US was conquered. Fuhrer means 'Dear Leader' he was Chancellor and before that vice-chancellor. In some European countries they have a prime minister and a president(same as chancellor and vice). Nazi Germany was similar: thus the US could have a president addressed as the Fuhrer under a totalitarian regime. I'm just getting starte
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
That is the problem with what "could" have happened. You can make up whatever crap you want. Germany has just 200 planes in France by the time of the invasion. Also, the Allies would not have launched the invasion anyway if they did not command the skies. Even if the Luftwaffe commanded the skies over Normandy it would likely not be jet fighters. Just the typical fighters the Germans used. Its not that the U-Boats were inferior, its that they were entirely outnumbered. Also, you say that it took 5 years to get "these two ships." I am assuming you are talking about the Bismarck and Tirpitz. Please note however that they did get those ships. However, the Germans could not get British warships like the King George V battleships in which only 1 was sunk out of 5 in the war. So it looks like to me that the Allies have a better record in the naval war than the Germans. So it is unlikely those U-boats would reach US shores. For more information about the documentary Hitchslap is backing please look at these videos and links:
http://tv-tastic.com...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by AnalyticArizonan 4 years ago
AnalyticArizonan
1HistorygeniusTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won 2, 3, and 5. Con won 4.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
1HistorygeniusTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Round 2 goes to Con as he explained how Waterloo caused lasting effects on Europe as opposed to a failed Nazi campaign into Russia. I feel Round 3 went to Pro, however, as he showed how Vienna was decisive in keeping Islam out. Round 4 was very close, but ultimately I give it to Con for choosing an invasion that changed a global war rather than an internal civil war. As much as I love Napoleon I have to give the final round to Pro, because Con didn't explain the effects of Austerlitz. Tied.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
1HistorygeniusTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought both debaters did well, but my vote goes to pro. The battles he protrayed struck the biggest chord with me as I am very familiar with them from college, also I feel they were some of the bigger and impacting battles. Like the battle of Vienna for example. Anyways, good job to both debaters, and good luck.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
1HistorygeniusTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: With battles like the Battle of Waterloo and D-Day, which both decided the fate of an entire continent, I think that con took the arguments.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
1HistorygeniusTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: R2: Tied. Both debaters presented strong evidence for historical significance of the respective battles, but tied in impact. R3: Con. While Pro's battle provided an interesting anecdote and point about basic military strategy, Con's showed massive historical importance (unification of the various German states.) R4: Con. While both battles had massive impacts, Normandy happened in the context of a World War, Gettysburg a smaller Civil War. R5: Tied. Neither battle appeared especially important.