The Instigator
STALIN
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
henryajevans
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

The Battle of 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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,858 times Debate No: 39360
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

STALIN

Pro

If you accept then please state your arguments and I will respond in the next round.
henryajevans

Con

I am going to argue that although Stalingrad was a key battle, it was not the most important for the following reasons.

Strategic Value of Stalingrad
  • Crossing on the River Volga, though there were many others.
  • The city had minor industry, mostly tasked with producing agricultural machinery for the surrounding farmland, and a population of 400,000, relatively small for the USSR at that time.
  • Moscow had about 4,250,000 people, Leningrad 3,000,000, Rostov 500,000, Kiev 1,000,000, Baku 800,000, Tblisi 600,000 and Odessa 750,000, so Stalingrad was relatively insignificant.
  • It did not block access to the Caucasus Mountains and their oil deposits; the mountains themselves did a good enough job of that.
  • Behind it lay acces to Kazakhstan and Siberia, which were relatively insignifignant in terms of strategic and resource value.
  • Stalingrad was 400km deeper into the USSR than Moscow.
Aftermath
  • Germany's Sixth Army was annihilated, but Army Group South was still largely intact.
  • The German Public did not find out about the defeat until the summer, after the Battle of Kursk.
  • A lot of materiel had made it out of the city, and the manpower losses were compensated for with reserves.
Alternative Battles
  • Kursk - Completely destroyed Army Group South. From then on, the Axis forces had a chronic shortage of armour and artillery. Also gave the Red Army experience in fighting in non-urban battles.
  • Leningrad - Sucked in a huge amount of German and Finnish materiel and manpower, and the loss caused Finland to leave the Axis, leaving Army Group Courland isolated after having left all their vehicles in Ingria.
  • Moscow - Stopped the Axis in their tracks, and subjected them to the first winter of their long and bitter campaign in the East.
  • Balkan Campaign - Delayed Operation Barbarossa by a crucial two months, meaning that they did not arrive in Moscow and Leningrad before the winter set in.
  • Imphal - Stopped the Japanese advance into India, stopping Japanese supremacy over Asia.
  • Coral Sea - Banished any hopes of a Japanese invasion of Australia, preserving control of the Pacific in the hands of the Allies.
Debate Round No. 1
STALIN

Pro

Moscow and Leningrad were not at populated as you stated, but either way, had more people than Stalingrad. However the population of a city that is being fought over isn't the important thing. What is important in deciding which battles were important is the effect of a certain battle on the outcome of the war.

All of those battles that you stated were not as important because:

Kursk: destroyed fewer German divisions than were destroyed at Stalingrad.
Leningrad: axis soldiers did not die in the hundreds of thousands the way they did at Stalingrad. Also, Leningrad was not as important of a city for the Soviets as Stalingrad was.
Moscow: out of all the battles you listed, this is probably the only battle which is anywhere near as important as the battle of Stalingrad. It saved Moscow and 300,000 died during this battle. However, the Soviets failed to encircle any significant amount of German divisions.
Balkan Campaign: the conquest German of Yugoslavia and Greece delayed Operation Barbarossa by two months. However this is not why operation Barbarossa failed. It failed due to Hitlers mistakes in the east and unexpectedly stiff resistance from the Russians.
Imphal: Imphal had no effect on the outcome of the war.
Coral Sea- If Japan had invaded Australia, then the allies would still have won the war either way. Australia was not one of the big three and did relatively little during WWII.

Importance of the Battle of Stalingrad:
-Saved Stalingrad(the second most important city in the USSR)
-Saved the USSR
-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses(Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc)
-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east from where they could reach India and Egypt)
-A staggering 850,000 German soldiers died
-This was the largest defeat for Germany
-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed
-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad
henryajevans

Con

You're looking at the decisiveness in terms of manpower and materiel.

Decisive means, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, 'Having the quality of deciding or determining (a question, contest, etc.); conclusive, determinative.'

I agree, as stated before, that Stalingrad was a battle of immense importance. It just wasn't the most decisive. I shall argue henceforth for a mixture of Kursk and the Allied bombing campaign on the Third Reich from 1940-45.

I am arguing for these because they operated in conjunction with each other, in terms of destroying the Axis' capacity for semi-modern warfare. At Stalingrad, the majority of the Sixth Army and the Fourth Panzer Army were equipped with the same weapons they had used in 1939, crucially, the armour and artillery. In the army approaching Stalingrad, the tanks were a motley collection including the Panzers II and III, with a few of the IV model; and even some Czechoslovak tanks from Germany's annexation in 1938-39 and captured Polish and Yugoslav tanks too, along with tanks from their Eastern European Allies of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Their artillery was even more mixed, with WWI field guns, K18 Heavy Cannons and everything in between.

Naturally, a sizeable portion, including nearly all of the obsolete tanks and artillery guns, were destroyed, abandoned or surrendered during the course of the battle, and Army Group South found itself in dire need of new tanks. They built hundreds of new tanks and field guns to be transported to the front line, including the Panzer V, known as the Panther; Tigers I, II and Konigstiger; the K18 heavy cannon and the new model of Nebelwerfer. Also, they had brought the Totenkopf division of the Waffen SS forward, the creme de la creme of the German army, which was all but wiped out at Kursk. Only half the number of tanks and artillery guns destroyed at Stalingrad were destroyed at Kursk, but the value of the materiel destroyed was greater, since they were fresh off the assembly line and as German tanks were upgraded, their mechanisms became more advanced and complex, meaning that they were more expensive and time-consuming to produce.

Russian tanks on the other hand were incredibly simple machines, with tractor engines and parts that could be hammered out and assembled, ready to leave the factory in a few hours. They were arguably better than the Panzer IV in battle, and better than the Panzer V on campaigns. A Panther was valued at about three quarters of a million dollars in today's money, while a T-34 was valued at around half of that. Bear in mind that since the currencies they were measured in have been abolished, these are approximations.

Since there was more demand for machine parts to build the tanks, more factories were built in Germany. Unfortunately for the Germans, 1943 saw the start of a huge series of allied bombing raids on German soil, and its industry was devastated. This resulted in the Axis forces, by this point nearly exclusively German, was suffering from a major shortage of armour and artillery. The German strategy was based on combined arms and rapid advance with motorised and mechanised infantry. None of this was possible with the advent of Soviet air superiority and the lack of tanks and artillery. After Kursk, the German Army was reduced to the equivilent of the Red Army in 1941 - a mass of infantry with some useless armour and artillery without competant leadership, at least in the east.
Debate Round No. 2
STALIN

Pro

The Battle of Kursk was not as important as Stalingrad because although many German tanks were destroyed, the defeat was not as large as the defeat at Stalingrad. Men win wars, not tanks. And although the Battle of Stalingrad was a major defeat for Germany, it had no effect on the outcome of the war. By 1943 the German Wehrmacht was too depleted and the Kursk salient was only a small fraction of the eastern front. If Germany had won this battle then the war would still have been won especially since the western allies were advancing in Italy. Even if the Soviets had lost at Kursk, they would still hugely outnumber the German army.

As for the western allied bombings, they had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the war. These bombings demolished many German cities and terrorized the population however even without them, the war would still have been won. The German army was destroyed not by bombs, but by the Soviets and the western allies. And the only reason these bombings were so successful was because of the fact that Germany had to build tanks instead of AA guns and send a huge portion of its air force to fight in the east.

The Battle of Britain was more important than the Battle of Kursk or the western allied bombings since that battle saved Britain. The Battle of Moscow was more important than the Battle of Kursk or the western allied bombings since that battle saved the USSR.

Neither the battle of Kursk or the western allied bombings did as much as the Battle of Stalingrad. Even if these two events had never happened, Germany would still have lost the war.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
henryajevans

Con

If men were more important than tanks, Italy would have lost the war with Ethiopia. Italy had three hundred thousand fewer soldiers than Ethiopia, but while it had over seven hundred tanks, Ethiopia had three. Tanks, planes and artillery guns are more important than men in wars. Men are relatively interchangeable. The population of the area kown as 'Grossdeutschland' was nearly a hundred million, the population of the occupied territories three times that. There was an almost unlimited supply of people to fight on all three sides in the war. The deciding factors were how well-equipped, organised, supported and financially backed those soldiers were.

Organisation was something the Axis were pretty good at for the first stages of the war. The Blitzkrieg and Kampfgruppe doctrines were without parallel for the first three years of the war, and devastated the Polish, Dutch, Belgian, French, British and Russian armies incredibly well until it slowed.

The other three factors were as a result of industry. From 1942 onwards, when the bombing campaign on Germany really started, Germany's industry did not cope well. As you said, the lack of anti-aircraft defences in Germany itself was partly due to the production of tanks in their stead. This also applies for consumer goods, tractors and other agricultural machinery, tools for improving infrastructure, military supplies, aeroplanes and trains. Without these, Germany lost its means for fighting war. The size of an army may have determined the victor in Napoleonic times, but in WWII, it was how well-supported the army was.

Conversely, Russian industry was concentrated further east at places such as Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk and Chelyabinsk, out of range of the German bombers. Allied industry was either in the fortress of Britain, which had had its anti-air defences renovated during and after the Battle of Britain and the Blitz; or in the USA, which was out of range of Germany and Japan.

Germany could have still won the war if Kursk was won. The aim of Kursk was to encircle and annihiliate an entire Soviet Army Corps, totalling nearly two million men, twenty-five thousand artillery guns and five thousand tanks. Not only would the loss of a significant portion of the Red Army's men and materiel have caused a major shock to Soviet industry, meaning that they would have to transfer resources and manpower from other fronts to replenish the Ukrainian front. This would have resulted in a German surge that in all likelihood would have captured Leningrad, Moscow and the Caucasus oilfields.

Also, the army corps at Kursk contained the modernised Red Army. It was a new model army that the Red Army was modeled on until the late 1960s, it was extremely valuable, and if it was annihilated or even defeated, it would deprive the Red Army of a means to fight the Germansin any organised fashion.

Instead, the German army was almost completely annihilated and sent into full retreat. After Kursk, every German operation in the east became about slowing the Soviet advance while the front tapered and they could mount some sort of defense near the eastern border of Germany.
Debate Round No. 3
STALIN

Pro

And yet tanks played no important role in the Battle of Stalingrad. I agree that tanks can be very important, more important than men. However tanks are easier to replace since you can just build them.

The western allied bombings were not as important as the Battle of Stalingrad. The bombings had no effect on the outcome of the war. The Battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, El Alamein, etc would still have been won. The bombings slowed down German wartime production but even if the Germans were producing without the bombings, the Soviets alone would still produce more than Germany. America produced twice as much as Russia. So it would not really matter. Germany would be outproduced either way. Without the bombings, the war may have lasted longer, but the outcome of WWII was decided in battles, not in the bombings of Germany.

Even if Germany had won at Kursk, the Soviets would still have a numerical superiority. During WWII Germany had 3-4 million men altogether on the eastern front. The Soviets had 25 million. America mobilized 11 million (many of whom never saw combat). Britain mobilized over 3 million men. If Germany defeated 2 million soldiers, then its still a long way to Moscow, Leningrad, or the Caucases and they would still be outnumbered. Even if the Germans won at Kursk, they would suffer loses that they had no way of replacing. The Battle of Kursk was definitely not decisive.

I also argue that second only to the Battle of Stalingrad, the battles of Britain and Moscow were the most important. Had Britain lost the Battle of Britain, there would be no western allied bombings and had Germany won the Battle of moscow, there would not have been any Battle of Kursk. These two battles saved the USSR and Britain. Neither Kursk not the bombings of Germany did this. Also, during the battle of Moscow, the Germans lost almost as much as they did at Kursk.

However the Battle of Stalingrad was clearly the most significant. Germany did not capture the unlimited supply of oil which was a vital resource during WWII. Germany did not defeat the Soviet army or invade the British empire through the middle east. The tide was turned at Stalingrad, not at Kursk. A German army was encircled at Stalingrad, not at Kursk. Kursk can be considered as simply another Germany defeat and the western allied bombings had no real impact on the outcome of the war.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.history.com...
henryajevans

Con

Men are much easier to replace than tanks (German tanks at least) because they can just be trained more. Training for the average German infantryman consisted of six weeks at boot camp and then being given a rifle and being put on a train bound for the front. A tank took on average about four months to build and then send to the frontline after tests.

The value of the equipment of an average modern US soldier is roughly $50,000. That includes the items that would not be given to a German soldier at that time, such as flakjacket, a particularly sophisticated helmet, the weapons used by a US soldier and the communications equipment. It is estimated that the value of a German soldier's equipment equates to roughly $10,000 in today's money. This is one seventy-fifth of the value of a Panther Tank, and about a twenty-fifth of the value of the average medium gun.

As Cicero said, 'the sinews of war are infinite money', and WWII was no exception. If we take money as meaning all resources that had intrinsic values such as steel, petrol, food and cement, this was Germany's undoing. The bombings had a huge impact on German industrial capacity, rendering it a hopeless economy. It is a fallacy to say that this had no effect on the outcome of the war.

The Wehrmacht had about eighteen million total personnel, the Regio Esercito about seven million, and the Balkan states and Vichy France about two million. That brings the Axis' total strength to roughly 27,000,000 personnel. Obviously, this did not mean 27,000,000 soldiers at the front line. It meant 27,000,000 soldiers, labourers, field engineers, medical staff, communications staff, general staff and others, which resulted in approximately 15,000,000 soldiers on active duty.

The USSR had about 25,000,000 personnel, roughly 16,000,000 of which were active servicemen. Record keeping was not one of the Red Army's fortes, and this figure takes account of any number of men that were present at the front, but were unregistered as part of the armed forces. I have also taken account of Soviet deserters to the Axis, as well as the various anti-communist militia groups that they had picked up during the invasion, which largely consisted of the former White Army cossacks that Stalin had not managed to tame through starvation. There was very little of this among the Allies, since their record keeping was probably the best of any side during the war, though admittedly it is probably due to the large numbers of destroyed or misplaced German and Soviet documents that occured during the war.

The Allies, by which I mean Britain, the Commonwealth and the USA (the figures would be distorted if I included Chinese and Native African forces present in the war, which had a negligable impact on the war in Europe), had roughly 20,000,000 personnel, of which approximately 12,000,000 were active servicemen posted to the various fronts.

So let's deal with the revised strengths.

Axis (excluding Japan) total personnel - ~27,000,000

USSR total personnel - ~25,000,000

Allies total personnel - ~20,000,000



Axis (excluding Japan) total active personnel - ~15,000,000

USSR total active personnel - ~16,000,000

Allies total active personnel - ~12,000,000



With a total armed forces that was the largest in Europe, the Axis powers were certaily in with a chance on paper. The only thing the figures disguise is the materiel the sides had. For the tactics and strategies employed by the Axis to work, they required huge numbers of tanks, planes, trucks and artillery guns. This sucked up Germany's economic power to produce, and the tanks and guns destroyed at Kursk were irreplacable due to the high value of the materials and expertise required in producing them. Germany had effectively thrown away its most expensive army, and enabled the Soviets to push them back along that front to the Dnieper and beyond.

From then on, the war was a large-scale version of the Abyssinian War, with Germany taking the role of Ethiopia and the USSR taking the role of Italy.

Two million soldiers would have been a serious dent in the Soviet lines, and though it would be replenished in time, it would have given the Germans the opportunity they needed to capture the ruins of Stalingrad and the Caucasus Oilfields for certain, and may have prevented the USSR from relieving Leningrad. The shock would have paralysed the Ukrainian and Caucasus fronts for weeks, even months, and Germany would have had a repeat of June-October 1941, fighting against a disorganised mass of infantry and scattered armour.

After Stalingrad, the German Army was still largely intact. It had suffered a shock on its localised power and morale, but it was still capable of recovering.

After Kursk however, the German Army was a mass of infantry in full retreat. Operation Citadel was the last offensive operation mounted by the Axis for the remainder of the war. The rest of the war was one long, bloody retreat back to Berlin.
Debate Round No. 4
STALIN

Pro

I see you have said absolutely nothing about the western allied bombings this last round which means that you have agreed that the bombings of Germany had no effect on the outcome of the war. You still however argue about the Battle of Kursk being more important than Stalingrad. I will prove you wrong.

You first state all of these unreasonable numbers on the size of different armies during WWII and you provide no resources to back them up. The USSR had some 25 million men and an air-force larger than all others combined. Germany only had a fraction of this number. In the first few months of the war, the USSR lost some 6 million men. The axis only lost a few hundred thousand. Had it not been for the overwhelming size of the Soviet army, Germany would definitely have won.
Here are some sites which prove my statements about the sizes of WWII armies:
http://www.world-war-2.info...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk...

I will now prove why the Battle of Kursk was not as important as Stalingrad.

Importance of Kursk:
-Destroyed many German tanks and infantry divisions.
-Ended any chances for a Germany victory in the east.

Importance of the Battle of Stalingrad:
-Saved Stalingrad(the second most important city in the USSR)
-Saved the USSR
-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses(Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc)
-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east from where they could reach India and Egypt)
-A staggering 850,000 German soldiers died
-This was the largest defeat for Germany
-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed
-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad

*Also, the German divisions destroyed at Kursk were untested soldiers and recruits. The Germans lost battle hardened veterans at Stalingrad. Even if Hitler had won at Kursk, it would still be a long way to Moscow and with the Americans bringing more and more men into the European theaters. On the eastern front alone, Germany was heavily outnumbered and even if he had won at Kursk, he would still be too depleted to win the war. The Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the World War II, not the Battle of Kursk. Even if the Soviets had lost 2 million men at Stalingrad, they would still win the war. In the first 5 months Russia lost 6 million men and still won the battles of Stalingrad and Moscow. The Soviets lost at Kiev, Smolensk, Kharkov, but in the end the Germans were still forced to retreat. Even if the Soviets lost at Kursk, they would still outnumber the German army. The Kursk salient was only a small part of the front and for the 1943 summer offensive the Germans only had 800,000-900,000 men while the Soviets had millions which proves just how depleted the German army was.

It is clear that the Battle of Kursk did not effect the outcome of WWII. By 1943, Germany simply did not have enough men to win the war which proves my argument is correct. VOTE PRO!!!
henryajevans

Con

Rebuttals

'I see you have said absolutely nothing about the western allied bombings this last round which means that you have agreed that the bombings of Germany had no effect on the outcome of the war'

The fact that I left a point as it was does not mean that it no longer has any significance as a point. It just means that it needed no more developing. Repeating points is a largely unnecessary exercise, and serves little to no purpose.

In case the point escaped you, the point was one simple but vital chain of understanding.

Soldiers need stuff to fight.
To produce stuff, factories are required.
The factories have been destroyed, therefore stuff cannot be produced.
Therefore there isn't any stuff.
Therefore the soldiers cannot fight.

A point as simple as that requires no further development.

I apologise for the numbers; I misread a source. The figure is anachronistic and includes all the soldiers that served in the German Army in one form or another. The Axis figures are more around the ten million mark for soldiers, and they were posted throughout Europe as occupation forces or as garrisons. The figure in the Eastern Front is more like six million, which is just under half of the Soviet forces.

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

It was by no means the second most important city in the USSR; since Leningrad, Kiev, Vladivostok, Sevastopol, Odessa, Minsk, Tblisi, Baku, Novosibirsk, Chelyabisk, etc. were more important than it strategically and economically.

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

Neither the Axis nor the British had the resources for a war in Mesopotamia and Persia at that time. Germany's supply lines were stretched enough as it was, and Iraq and Persia had terrible infrastructure at the time.

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

They weren't; just weeks after Stalingrad ended, Manstein led 70,000 German soldiers to defeat 350,000 Red Army soldiers at the Third Battle of Kharkov, a counter-offensive that was highly successful. This shows that Germany still had some offensive power after Stalingrad. After Kursk however, they did not, and had very little deensive power too.

The soldiers at Kursk included the II SS Panzer Corps and the Wiking division. Hardly untested recruits, I hasten to add.

You also make a contradiction when you said that Kursk 'Ended any chances for a Germany victory in the east.', and then state that 'It is clear that the Battle of Kursk did not effect the outcome of WWII. By 1943, Germany simply did not have enough men to win the war ' is a direct contradiction.

Vote Con!!!
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
"I should have received 2 points for having reliable sources as opposed to Con who had none. Yet you said we tied in that area when you voted. In other words, you are an unreliable voter Ore_Ele."

In defense of ore_ele, I felt the same apprehension about PRO's sources...you need to state your main point, and then list the source to substantiate...telling readers to look at sources for information is never a good idea...you should be presenting the information you want them to look at.

Format should be something like fact, [source], fact [source], not fact, fact, "please look at sources". I had no idea which facts the sources were attempting to corroborate.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
1) CON's laundry list in round #2 is not convincing...each item can be easily refuted, and was refuted by PRO.

2) CON: "I shall argue henceforth for a mixture of Kursk and the Allied bombing campaign on the Third Reich from 1940-45."

1940-45 bombing is NOT a battle, and is thus invalid for this debate..otherwise you can call all of WWII a "battle". I'll focus on Kursk.

3) PRO: "And although the Battle of Stalingrad was a major defeat for Germany, it had no effect on the outcome of the war."

This would work AGAINST PRO's case. Not sure why he brought it up.

4) CON: "If men were more important than tanks, Italy would have lost the war with Ethiopia. "

Good counter.

5) PRO: "However tanks are easier to replace since you can just build them."

Agree. I suppose the significance lies somewhere in the middle.

6) PRO: " If Germany defeated 2 million soldiers, then its still a long way to Moscow, Leningrad, or the Caucases and they would still be outnumbered."

Good counter.

7) PRO: "Here are some sites which prove my statements about the sizes of WWII armies:"

None of these sites describe the size of the German army, only German casualties, which were indeed a fraction of the USSR's.

8) PRO: " The Germans lost battle hardened veterans at Stalingrad."

Ok.

9) CON: "I apologise for the numbers; I misread a source. "

You need to cite your sources.

---

CONCLUSION

My overview is similar to Ore_ele's - this debate was difficult to follow and was rather unorganized. The most salient factor for me was the same, men vs tanks...tanks was a wash, and given CON's misrepresentation and lack of sources on troop counts, I will give this close debate to PRO. No sources though, this debate was too close and too unorganized on both sides, which made it somewhat less enjoyable as it wore on.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
I should have received 2 points for having reliable sources as opposed to Con who had none. Yet you said we tied in that area when you voted. In other words, you are an unreliable voter Ore_Ele.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
OK Ore_Ele.
Posted by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
(continued from RFD)

In the later rounds. This was the only link that really distinguished between different battles. There were a lot more that could have been offered from both sides, but again, organization and focus would have been greatly needed so to stay within a character limit.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
You got several things wrong increfulous 1972. First, the siege of Leningrad tied down German and Finnish units for years but it did little to destroy any armies. Second, the Soviets fought in WWII for 4 years, not 6 years. The United States also fought in WWII for 4 years (the US entered the war a few months after Germany was attacked the USSR). Your final error is in thinking that the allied invasion of France had any effect on the outcome of the war. Germany was all but defeated by 1944; during D-Day an allied force of 156,000 men assaulted a German front of only 10,000 men. This shows how much Germany was struggling with manpower. During the Battle of the Bulge, a German army of 200,000 men tried to drive the western allies out of France and the western allies had a staggering 3 million soldiers in France. Thank you for wishing me luck.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
You got several things wrong increfulous 1972. First, the siege of Leningrad tied down German and Finnish units for years but it did little to destroy any armies. Second, the Soviets fought in WWII for 4 years, not 6 years. The United States also fought in WWII for 4 years (the US entered the war a few months after Germany was attacked the USSR). Your final error is in thinking that the allied invasion of France had any effect on the outcome of the war. Germany was all but defeated by 1944; during D-Day an allied force of 156,000 men assaulted a German front of only 10,000 men. This shows how much Germany was struggling with manpower. During the Battle of the Bulge, a German army of 200,000 men tried to drive the western allies out of France and the western allies had a staggering 3 million soldiers in France. Thank you for wishing me luck.
Posted by incredulous1972 3 years ago
incredulous1972
Interesting premise, although a number of arguments could be made that

(1) Leningrad was just as important and tied up German, Finnish, and Italian units for years.

and

(2) the fact that Japan didn't invade Russia is probably more important to the whole war than anything. It allowed the Russians to move their entire Eastern front to the west, and in the end over 200 Russian divisions attacked the Germans on what we now call the "Eastern front". It wasn't until this happened that the sieges on both Stalingrad and Leningrad were broken, and the momentum swung back to the Russians. Arguably, the Allied invasion may have hastened the end for the Germans, but by the time Truman finally gave the go-ahead for the Allied invasion in France, it was already over. Remember this simple math: The Russians fought for 6 years, the US only for about 15 months.

Unfortunately, your criteria for "what is the most important battle" wouldn't really fit into my little "most important battle that never happened" argument, so for that reason alone I think it more prudent to abstain.

In any case, an interesting premise to be sure. Good luck, Stalin.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
STALINhenryajevansTied
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: see comments. This debate was too close to award sources PRO.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
STALINhenryajevansTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that the debate was largely unorganized on both sides and hard a hard time focusing. When one debates "X was most important" the countering claim is not to say that X wasn't important, it is to say Y was more important. That gives the debate focus and allows an easy comparison. Con started by saying that the battle wasn't that important and listed off a number of other battles, but didn't directly compare them. The complete lack of sources (and saying "these source support me" without actually tying them into the debate does not count as sourcing) made all the claims hard to weigh. Pro said the battle saved Russian oil fields, Con said they were protected by the mountains, and that was it. That point is clearly one of the most significant aspects to the battle and it's importance, yet that point was never developed by either side. It is hard to give arguments off assertions, however I will award them to Con for the back and forth regarding personell vs equipment (see com)