The Instigator
STALIN
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EndarkenedRationalist
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
EndarkenedRationalist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,000 times Debate No: 43813
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

STALIN

Pro

My opponent will choose a different battle and argue why it was more important than Stalingrad.

Round 1 is for acceptance and naming the battle you believe was more important than Stalingrad.
EndarkenedRationalist

Con

I accept the debate! I will be arguing that the Battle of Kursk was more important than the Battle of Stalingrad in World War II.
Debate Round No. 1
STALIN

Pro

Reasons that Stalingrad was important:

-Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR)
-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil.
-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt)
-Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties[1]
-This was the largest defeat for Germany[2]
-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war)
-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad
-Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis

Kursk did not have as much of an effect on the outcome of WWII as Stalingrad did. Although Kursk was the largest tank battle in history and ended all hopes of Germany surviving WWII, Kursk did not influence WWII in the way that Stalingrad did. The battle of Stalingrad was the turning point in WWII.

What would have happened if Germany had won the battle of Stalingrad:

Had Germany won at Stalingrad, the Red Army would most likely have been entirely
destroyed in the process. This is largely because Stalin was prepared to sacrifice everything
in order to save Stalingrad. Had Germany won the battle of Stalingrad they would have gained
access to unlimited quantities of oil (the forces sent to the Caucasus were forced to retreat
from the oil fields because of the German encirclement at Stalingrad). A German victory at
Stalingrad would have almost definitely won the war for Germany. Britain and the Soviet Union
would most likely have been crushed.

What would have happened if Germany had won the battle of Kursk:

Had Germany won at Kursk, Germany would still have probably lost the war. On the eastern front
alone, Germany was heavily outnumbered. With fresh troops from America pouring into the
European Theater, Germany would have been overwhelmed. A German victory at Kursk would not have
won them the war in the east.

Conclusion:

By 1943, Germany simply didn't have the manpower and resources for victory. In 1942 however,
Germany was still strong. Without the battle of Stalingrad, the battle of
Kursk would never have happened. In terms of effecting the outcome of WWII, Stalingrad
stands above all other battles.

I await arguments from my opponent.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.history.com...
EndarkenedRationalist

Con

I thank my opponent for his timely response and strong arguments. However, I still contend that the Battle of Kursk held more significance.

I admit that the Battle of Stalingrad allowed the Soviet Union to save their oil (though not Maikop, which remained in German hands until early 1943) [1]. However, Germany's situation was not yet so desperate that it needed the oil.

Following the battle of Stalingrad, the Red Army went on the offensive. However, it overextended itself and left Germany with a good position to counter-attack. 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.

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 [2].

In 1942, Germany produced 5,700 medium and light tanks. In 1943, this number soared to 11,900 [3]. Additionally, from 1942 to 1943, production of German planes doubled, and ammunition had increased three-fold [3]. Furthermore, the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe were also gaining power. The former received Tiger, King Tiger, and Panther tanks, as well as the new Ferdinand self-propelled gun, and the latter gained the Focke-Wolfe 190A Fighter and the Henschel 129 [3]. Lastly, with no second front in the West, Germany stationed more and more of its troops in Russia. By summer of 1943, it had 2/3 of its army there [3]. Clearly, in 1943, Germany was still at the height of its power.

A German victory at Kursk would have meant several things.

1. 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.

2. The Russians would have been demoralised. It must be remembered that Russia was already upset with the Western Allies for not opening a second front in the West. Had Germany prevailed at Kursk, any relationship between the Soviet Union and the Western Allies would have shattered [2].

3. 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. Hitler himself stated that a victory at Kursk would "shine like a beacon to the world" [4].

4. Germany's power would have remained supreme. 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 [5]. Furthermore, as Dennis Showalter notes in his book, Armor and Blood: The Battle of Kursk: The Turning Point of World War II, the Soviets had neither "the Germans' sophisticated air-ground liason system nor the Luftwaffe's smoothly working maintenance capacities" [6].

5. An often-overlooked point is that the Battle of Kursk convinced Hitler that his generals were incompetent [7]. As a result of Germany's defeat, Hitler began making more and more decisions (and, as history has shown, Hitler was not the greatest military general ever). Had Germany won, their generals and strategists would have continued planning rather than Hitler.

6. As a result of losing the Battle of Kursk, Germany alone suffered around 500,000 casualties (not counting tanks or planes) [3]. Though this is likely fewer than Stalingrad, it is still a significant force. Soviet casualties are unknown, but they are estimated to be higher than German ones. Had Germany triumphed, it likely would have lost fewer men and thus have had more manpower to resume an offensive on the Eastern Front.

The Battle of Kursk was Germany's last major offensive on the Eastern Front. Had they triumphed, it is both possible and likely that they would have continued their rampage through Russia. Though Germany did not possess the resources to force Russia into a surrender in 1943, at the very least (the bare minimum), it would have delayed Russian operations for several months. After Kursk, Germany never again had an opportunity to triumph in the Eastern Front.

I ask for evidence that the reason Turkey didn't enter the war was because of the German defeat at Stalingrad.

I await my opponent's responses!

[1] http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

[2] http://www.columbia.edu...

[3] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

[4] http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com...

[5] http://www.thedailybeast.com...;

[6] Dennis Showalter. Armor and Blood: The Battle of Kursk: The Turning Point of World War II. New York. Random House. 2013. Print.

[7] http://www.battleofkursk.org...
Debate Round No. 2
STALIN

Pro

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...
EndarkenedRationalist

Con

I thank my opponent for his response!

"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...
Debate Round No. 3
STALIN

Pro

"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.historylearningsite.co.uk...
EndarkenedRationalist

Con

As this is the final round, I will not raise new arguments. 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.

Finally, I would like to likewise thank my opponent for this challenging debate, and I ask the voters to vote CON!
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
Losing this one must have really stung huh stalin?
Posted by STALIN 2 years ago
STALIN
huh?
Posted by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
kfc
Posted by toamatt26 2 years ago
toamatt26
Don't worry. There are still like 10 other debates with the same resolution lol.
Posted by toamatt26 2 years ago
toamatt26
Don't worry. There are still like 10 other debates with the same resolution lol.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Maybe I'll have this debate with you some other time, when I'm not involved in 3 other debates.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 2 years ago
KingDebater
STALINEndarkenedRationalistTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Con consistently had better sources, whilst pro had sources such as wikipedia and amazon. Conduct + S/g: Nothing in either of these areas that warrants points either way. Arguments: I was more convinced of con's arguments, arguing that the battle of Kursk was more vital to Germany (casualties, oil, and the fact that this battle made Hitler think that his generals were incompetent).