History Debate Thread

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • BrutusTrump wrote:

      Stalingrad wasn't a very strategic location. At the start of the battle, it would not have meant much if either side won the battle. The most important thing about it would be it's symbolic significance. Morale might've gone down a little. However, as both sides began pouring more money and manpower into the battle, the importance of Stalingrad grew. If the Germans won, there would be many more Soviet casualties. The Germans would be able to launch a campaign against the Caucasus region. Stalin would have to divert more troops from the north down into the Caucasus. Soviet morale would also go down. While Germany still couldn't win on the Eastern Front, they could've prolonged the war for another year.
      The German forces were stretched too wide. Their forces were dispersed, their supply lines were hundreds of mile long, susceptible to attacks from civilians. The poor infanstructure only made supplying troops worse. Even if Moscow of captured it was very likely the fighting would have continued. The entire campaign was a mistake in the first place.
    • For the french, the battle of Agincourt. Thousands were killed, over 100 royals were lost, and quite a lot of dukes and earls were captured and ransomed. Although, if you're English, that's a pretty good thing for us.
      If you say there are no limits in the world, why do you say to keep trying until you get something right? There is no limit of wrong answers, you're wasting your life away for a goal you can never reach. :00002178:

      -Alexandera Nevsky