66 years ago: the battle of kursk
On July 4, 1943, the Germans launched an enormous offensive to pinch off a large salient of Soviet forces around the Kursk area. This was Operation Citadel, and the engagement would involve some 6,000 tanks, 4,000 aircraft, and 2 million men. It was the greatest tank battle in history. I found this article on HistoryNet about the battle.
In the end, the German armed forces didn’t really lose the battle. Hitler decided not to press on in light of other goings on in the war, like the invasion of Sicily by Anglo-American forces. Nevertheless, it is interesting to think about what might have happened had the Germans continued to attack:
To what extent the course of events in Russia would have been changed is, of course, unknown, but it is interesting to speculate. If Army Group South’s panzer reserve had been used to encircle and destroy the Fifth Guards Tank Army and the First Tank Army, the outcome of the war in Russia might have been significantly different. Although it was beyond the German army’s capabilities to force a military end to the war by the summer of 1943, a limited victory in the south could have resulted in a delay of Soviet strategic operations for months or perhaps longer. It is doubtful, however, that this pause would have lasted long enough for the Germans to transfer enough forces to the West to defeat the June 6, 1944, D-Day invasion.
In the end, the outcome of the war still would have been the same. One could argue that the shape of Europe might have been different. A delay could have meant that American and British units would have reached Berlin long before the Red Army. Interesting to think about.
Sorry for boring you all with World War 2 history.
There is a point of view which could argue that the allies did not want to take Berlin. The reasons behind this are similar to those relating to the use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese.
Berlin had such and emotional significance to the Nazis that there is no doubt that massive allied casualties would have ensued. As always in such circumstances the Americans would have been inclined to make a seedy peace rather than accept the inevitable deaths of soldiers.
The soviets had no such qualms and in their desire for European security post war were determined to smash the German war machine regardless of human cost.
It was through allied collusion that British and American forces were halted and the soviets allowed to take Berlin.
America’s craven attitude to casualties and its reluctance to show bravery in such circumstances contributed disastrously to Stalins rape of innocent Eastern Europe after the war.
As always, lack of moral fibre on the part of America allowed a monster to roam around Europe for almost 50 years.
The Americans craven attitude towards modern terrorists is history repeating itself.
If I’m not mistaken, Churchill would agree with that assessment (as would I).
whoa
The whole business of the Normandy invasion in June 1944 was cynicals and was caused by the fear of Stalin’s domination of the whole of Europe.
If Germasns would have succeeded in Kursk would not change the outcome of the war: Stalin was determined to finish HItler whatever was the cost in human lives. Even without that , The Soviet Union losses are beyond any imaginations:
28,000,000 civilians and 10,000,000 soldiers dead.
Stalin was determined to finish Hitler off regardless of the cost; however, the invasion of June 6, 1944 was not just due to fear of the Soviet Union taking over much of Europe. Part of it was also due to Stalin himself pleading for the opening of a second front, which he received partially in the form of invasion of North Africa, then Sicily, then Italy, and the round-the-clock bombing of the Third Reich by the RAF and USAAF.
No, Kursk wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the war; however, a different result would have set the Red Army back a bit.