The Instigator
STALIN
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ProWritingSkillz
Con (against)
Losing
0 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...
STALIN
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,124 times Debate No: 43814
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
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.
ProWritingSkillz

Con

I accept. I will be supporting the fact that the Battle of Normandy or "D-day" was the most important battle of world war 2. best of luck to my opponent
Debate Round No. 1
STALIN

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this debate. The Normandy landings, also known as D-Day is usually viewed by the west as one of the most important events of WWII. However what is not understood, is that D-Day took place in 1944 when it was clear that Germany would lose. Germany was heavily outnumbered on all fronts and had no sufficient reserves of planes and armor.

During D-Day, 156,000 allied troops assaulted a 10,000 man German front. Germany had relatively few troops in France because most of those soldiers were fighting on other fronts. D-Day enabled the allies to later invade France, however besides shortening the war by perhaps a couple months, the allied invasion of France did nothing. Germany would have lose, sooner or later. [1]

The Battle of Stalingrad however can be considered as the most important battle of WWII

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. [2]
-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 [2]
-This was the largest defeat for Germany
-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

What was more important, a battle that resulted in 20,000 casualties, or a battle that resulted in 2,000,000 dead? At D-Day, Germany suffered some 6,000 casualties. At Stalingrad the axis suffered 850,000 casualties. Before Stalingrad, Germany had a chance to win. After Stalingrad the chances of a Germany victory were almost nonexistent. D-Day shortened the war by a couple months but had no effect on the outcome of WWII.

I would like to also state that Con picked a weak battle to support in this debate. The Battles of Moscow,the Battle of Britain, or even the Battle of Kursk might have been debatable in importance to Stalingrad, however D-Day is not.

Sources:

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

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

Con

Interesting points by my opponent.

Before I start I would like to address some of the flaws in my opponents argument.

Let me begin with the first. My opponent believes that saving a oil haven city that he generalizes as an "important" has something to do with being the most important battle of WWII. If a country is important to it's people this does not allow us to conclude that it could have been the most important battle in the war. We are examining the chronology of WWII with regards to battles that impacted others as being a focal point of the war.

Next, my opponent states that Germany suffered a fair number of casualties in this battle. One cannot conclude just from the fact that since many lives were lost it signifies that an important battle took place. A country could send it's average soldiers to battles and be saving their exemplary soldiers for towards the end. Just because it was a high quantity does not necessarily mean high quality.

My points:

When a war is being waged the three most important things to consider are personnel, strategy, and timing. Your personnel must be equal in strength to that of your opponent. Your strategy must also be sound and you should attack the weaknesses of your opponents. However, while battles are being commenced for positioning, the most important factor when considering timing is ALWAYS after or before a battle, not during.

After a battle can be the most opportune time to strike your opponent. After a battle is over, both sides must regroup, refuel, and restrategize about their next objective and what needs to be done to meet it. Germany lost it's battle to the Soviets at Stalingrad, but they had not been defeated. Harboring one of the most largest and effective armies at 15 million at one point, anything was possible for Germany going into the future.

One of the most difficult feats to accomplish during a war is to completely stave off the opponent and will them into submission, because in any scenario or situation that you don't, the opponent still has a fighting chance to reinvent, recommit and grow it's chances.

Reasons why D-Day was the most important battle of WWII
- It was a surprise attack
- it was the largest amphibious invasion in world history
- It forced Germany into surrender
- It involved 13 nations
- It assembled one of the largest naval armies ever

and this is just for fun, some food for thought incase you fell for my opponents "numbers" argument.

D-Day approx 6,000 - 8,000 casualties
Battle of Stalingrad 850,000 / 160 days = 5,312 per day

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
STALIN

Pro

"My opponent believes that saving a oil haven city that he generalizes as an "important" has something to do with being the most important battle of WWII."

Without oil, tanks, planes, trucks, ships, etc. could not work. Without oil, a country would collapse. Had the Soviets lost the oil fields where most of their oil had come from, they would have been forced to make peace with Germany. Allied supplies to the Soviets would not have been enough. This is why oil was so important!

"One cannot conclude just from the fact that since many lives were lost it signifies that an important battle took place."

This is true. However there were almost 2 million deaths at Stalingrad. At D-Day, there were around 20,000 casualties. This alone does not prove that Stalingrad was more important. However it shows that the fighting at Stalingrad was much more brutal and significant compared to D-Day.

"However, while battles are being commenced for positioning, the most important factor when considering timing is ALWAYS after or before a battle, not during."

The timing during the battle is very important. My opponent makes incorrect assumptions. Lets take the battle of Moscow for example. The Soviets timed the Siberian offensive perfectly. They launched the offensive when Germany was weak from hunger and cold. This saved Moscow. Also, this is a good example of how timing during battles are very important.

"Harboring one of the most largest and effective armies at 15 million at one point, anything was possible for Germany going into the future."

I'm not sure what my opponent means here. I will assume that he is saying that the Soviets had 15 million men at Stalingrad. This is false. Take a look at Con's sources which show how this is false.

"It was a surprise attack"

Does it matter if D-Day was a surprise attack? This doesn't make it more important than Stalingrad. After all, Stalingrad was also a surprise attack by the Germans and then by the Soviets. But did I argue that Stalingrad was more important because Germany launched Case Blue which took the Soviets completely by surprise and destroyed many more divisions than Germany lost at D-Day?

"It was the largest amphibious invasion in world history"

Does it matter if it was the largest amphibious invasion in history? Fine then. Stalingrad was the bloodiest and one of the largest battles in history which involved more than there was at Normandy. This argument does not really support my opponent's position at all.

"It forced Germany into surrender"

If this were true then why is it that Germany kept fighting until 1945? D-Day was not the reason Germany finally surrendered. The battle of Berlin was.

"It involved 13 nations"

Would it matter if D-Day involved 13 nations or 14 nations? My opponent doesn't really say how this argument supports his position.

"It assembled one of the largest naval armies ever"

And that makes D-Day more important than Stalingrad? After all, like I said earlier, Stalingrad was one of the largest battles in history.

My opponents statistics on how many soldiers Germany lost at D-Day are irrelevant. First of all, Germany didn't suffer 6,000-8,000 casualties during D-Day. Estimates for German casualties during D-Day might have been as low as 4,000[1]. Second, Germany didn't suffer 850,000 casualties per day. On a single day for example, around 100,000 German soldiers surrendered[2]. Third, we are not looking at every single individual day. We are looking at the importance of the battle overall. How many casualties did Germany suffer overall. And finally, I would like to say that during the battle of Stalingrad, Germany lost 1,500 tanks and 900 aircraft[2]. During D-Day, Germany lost no tanks or planes. There were only around 10,000 men facing 156,000 allied soldiers.

My opponent failed to address several of my arguments. I will state them again:

Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt)

The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war)

Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis

Also, had Germany broken through into the middle east, they would have had a good chance of linking up with the Japanese.

Conclusion:

I have shown that Stalingrad was the turning point in WWII. D-Day came at a time when Germany was significantly weakened after suffering millions of casualties. On a global scale, no other battle can match the importance of Stalingrad!

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Sources:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
To the naive eye, it would look like these two debates are exactly the same; however, this is not the case. In this debate, two extra exclamation marks were added--a subtle difference I admit, but one that is certain to have far-reaching consequences.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
STALINProWritingSkillzTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to the fact that all of round 3 arguments by pro were left unanswered by con, pro wins arguments, and thus the debate.