The Instigator
STALIN
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
NightofTheLivingCats
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

STALINGRAD was the most important battle of World War II!

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 6 votes the winner is...
STALIN
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,772 times Debate No: 43484
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (42)
Votes (6)

 

STALIN

Pro

I hope nobody will complain about me making another one of these debates.

I will argue that Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII in terms of effecting the outcome of the war. My opponent will choose a battle that he/she believes was more important than Stalingrad and show how it was more important than the battle of Stalingrad.

Round 1 is for acceptance and stating which battle you think is more important than Stalingrad. 4 rounds with 8,000 characters per round.

Good luck!
NightofTheLivingCats

Con

I will prove that the Battle of Berlin was the important battle of the war.
Debate Round No. 1
STALIN

Pro

I would like to thank Con for this debate. There are many reasons that the Battle of Berlin was not as significant as Stalingrad was.

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. [1]
-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
-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

Reasons that the battle of Berlin was important:

-Finished off Germany and finally brought an end to WWII.
-Caused Hitler to kill himself.

Clearly the battle of Stalingrad played a much more important role in the actual defeat of Nazi Germany. Anybody could have captured Berlin.

Lets see what my opponent has to say.

Sources:

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

Con

-Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR)

Fair enough.

-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. [1]

Would not matter. The war ended as the result of the Battle of Berlin.

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

Battle of Berlin saved them too.

-Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties [1]

Germany suffered a staggering 1 capital city

-This was the largest defeat for Germany

...Intill Berlin

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

And Berlin finished it of.

-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad

See above.

-Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis

Interesting. Never heard about this before.


--------------------------------------------------------------

My reasons:


-Finished off Germany and finally brought an end to WWII in Europe.
-Caused Hitler to kill himself.
-Germans lost Berlin.

This is really all that is needed. It ended the European Theatre and Hitler shot himself.
Debate Round No. 2
STALIN

Pro

"Would not matter. The war ended as the result of the Battle of Berlin."

Throughout WWII, Germany lacked sufficient oil. Without oil tanks and planes don't work. Trucks can't transport troops. Oil was vital in WWII and whichever side didn't have enough of it would lose the war.

"Battle of Berlin saved them too."

The Battle of Berlin was Hitler's last stand. By 1945, Germany was no longer a threat to the British Empire.

"Germany suffered a staggering 1 capital city"

Yes that is what can be said about the battle of Berlin.

"This was the largest defeat for Germany

...Intill Berlin"

Not really. Stalingrad was a much larger defeat for Germany than Berlin.

"Finished off Germany and finally brought an end to WWII in Europe."

Yes that is clear. The only problem is that even before the battle of Berlin, Germany was already almost dead.

"Caused Hitler to kill himself."

True, however this isn't really what decided the outcome of WWII.

"Germans lost Berlin."

It would be nice if my opponent elaborated on this a little more.

Conclusion: During the battle of Berlin Germany suffered around 800,000 casualties[1]. Most of these were not battle hardened veterans. During the battle of Stalingrad Germany suffered 850,000 casualties including some of the best German divisions. Without the battle of Stalingrad, the battle of Berlin would never have happened. Stalingrad was the bloodiest and most decisive battle of WWII. Berlin happened when the outcome of WWII was no longer in doubt.

Sources:

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

Con

Stalin has a unclear version of what "important" means.

"1. Strongly affecting the course of events or the nature of things; significant:"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


The Battle of Berlin drew the European Theatre to a close. It ended World War 2.


Throughout WWII, Germany lacked sufficient oil. Without oil tanks and planes don't work. Trucks can't transport troops. Oil was vital in WWII and whichever side didn't have enough of it would lose the war.

Red Herring.

The Battle of Berlin was Hitler's last stand. By 1945, Germany was no longer a threat to the British Empire.

Red Herring.

Not really. Stalingrad was a much larger defeat for Germany than Berlin.

I digress The Battle of Berlin arguably led to East/West Germany, which would make Stalingrad look like a child fallen from his bike and got a bloody nose, but this is off topic.

And this is really restating the point. "Great" battle are indeed known about how much enemies were killed, but also how it shaped the war and what would happen if the battle never taken place. It is debatable that WW2 would have ended more or less the same if Stalingrad never happened.

Yes that is clear. The only problem is that even before the battle of Berlin, Germany was already almost dead.

Red Herring. It does not matter the state of Germany. What is important, is that the Battle of Berlin ended the European War. Stalingrad doesn't do that. Stalingrad LED to it, but it didn't end the war.

True, however this isn't really what decided the outcome of WWII.


I don't know about that. Hitler's death and the lost of Berlin decided it pretty well.


Thank you for your time.

Debate Round No. 3
STALIN

Pro

For this final round, I will simply sum up what I said earlier.

The battle of Stalingrad was important because:

-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
-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

Why Stalingrad was more important:

-The battle of Stalingrad took place at a time when the outcome of WWII was still uncertain. The same can not be said about the battle of Berlin.
-Stalingrad was the climax of the European theater. The battle of Berlin was simply a conclusion.
-Germany suffered much more at Stalingrad than at the battle of Berlin. This includes 850,000 of Germany's best men.
-Anybody could have captured Berlin. As a matter of fact, the battle of Berlin never really needed to happen. The Soviets could have just waited for America to develop the atomic bomb.
-By the time the battle of Berlin happened, Germany was down to boys and old men.
-Hitler failed to capture Stalingrad. He spent everything on the city but failed. This was a huge humiliation for Hitler.
-Hitler lost all chances of gaining oil. Oil was important for tanks, planes, trucks, ships, etc.

Conclusion

The battle of Stalingrad was clearly more important because it decided the outcome of WWII. Had Germany won at Stalingrad, the USSR would have fallen and the British empire would have been next. In terms of deciding the outcome of WWII, Stalingrad stands above Berlin. Germany had no chances of winning by the time the battle of Berlin happened. It was outnumbered at least 10:1 by both the Soviets and the Western Allies. Stalingrad decided the outcome of WWII. Had it not been for the battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets would never have reached Berlin the battle of Berlin would never have occurred. As a result of Stalingrad, the Soviets won at Kursk, Operation Bagration was successful, and WWII was finally won.


NightofTheLivingCats

Con

I have explained why Berlin is the most important battle in WWII. As such, I will leave it to the voters to pick, as STALIN has a different defintion of "inportant".

He has also dropped my whole round, so I guess that is a concession.

Thank you, and kfc.
Debate Round No. 4
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Oh ye I know. Its cause cats was spamming kfc.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
What about them?
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Comments!
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Rofl how did this get on the front page?
Posted by NightofTheLivingCats 3 years ago
NightofTheLivingCats
kfc
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
go away kid
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
kfc
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
f***ot
Posted by NightofTheLivingCats 3 years ago
NightofTheLivingCats
kfc
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
kfc:)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
STALINNightofTheLivingCatsTied
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: I would have appreciated a little more context and sourcing since I'm not that interested in WWII war history and, ironically, I have never read a debate on the battle of Stalingrad before this one. Initially arguments were even, imo, even though Con was pretty concise. That the battle of Berlin ended the war, accomplished some of the same things as the battle at Stalingrad and gave us the capital of Germany were a nice counter to negate Pro's claims. Con brought up some useful points in round 3. The assertion that some Pro's arguments were a red herring and the suggestion that the war may have ended the same even if Stalingrad had gone the other way were useful points. At the very least these concerns should have been addressed. To me this was enough to shift an otherwise split argument to Con.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
STALINNightofTheLivingCatsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to Pro. Pro had strong arugments for why his battle was most important to the war, while Con tended to concentrate on arguments that showed the Battle of Berlin's symbolic importance, though perhaps not substantial importance. Although Pro used one source more than Con (zero, not including the dictionary), sources didn't seem particularly important to this debate, so I'm making that category a tie. Con dismissed many of Pro's arguments with the sentence fragment "red herring," which I found very rude. One should only say "red herring" if one can also give reasons for why these arguments fall under that category. There were also frequent grammar errors such as "of" instead of "off" and "intill" instead of "until," and also numerous sentence fragments. I think that Con might have spend too much space quoting, which handicaps her/his ability to effectively insert competitive literature.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
STALINNightofTheLivingCatsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was tied by both sides as a resounding "meh" up until Round 4, giving one sentence arguments to refute other one sentence arguments on each face of the coin. In the very nature of structured debate, the winner was conclusively con due to Pro's Round 4 not refuting the Round 3 statements, but instead, it seems, creating a new Round 1. I agree that Con's round 3 was weak, but it still managed to slip through Pro's fingers simply because he didn't directly argue against it. Controversial as it may be, I also award conduct to Con as an incentive for Pro to explore other topics.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
STALINNightofTheLivingCatsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied because of Con's argument being more clear and readable and more simplified but his use of diction caused this point to be tied. Con had spelling errors and Pro had many argument points and rebuttals but Con rebutted Pro's arguments with inane stuff like red Herring. Con had less argumentative points on why Berlin was more important as Pro has shown how Stalingrad was in fact the turning point in the war. Wikipedia is an alright source but sometimes considered invalid but a dictionary source to simply define important had a more little relevance than the wikipedia source.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
STALINNightofTheLivingCatsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Coming in to this debate topic, I had no idea. However, I do believe that con did put out more efficent arguments, as pro dropped all of them in the last round of debate, when he did not have to. Sources were minimal, but I have decided to give it to con due to the two uses of Wikipedia on the side of pro, which I do not find a reliable source... at all. Conduct to pro because of the kfc at the end of con's argument, which really annoys the crap out of pro. Spelling and grammar was bad throughout for the con side, especially on the "intil (until)" spelling mistake. Good job to both debaters and best of luck in the future debates.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
STALINNightofTheLivingCatsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Pro has shown that Stalingrad was the most important battle during World War 2. Con made a mistake when they decided to share the BOP. All they needed to do was refute Pro's claim that Stalingrad was the most important battle. Pro proved his resolution in Round 3 when he pointed out that at the time of Battle of Berlin that the German military was insignificant. Good luck to you both in future debates.