Help support TMP

"Would an earlier Kursk have made a difference?" Topic

19 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Link

Featured Ruleset

Combined Arms

Rating: gold star gold star gold star 

Featured Showcase Article

Soviet Casualties

On Memorial Day (U.S.), a reminder of the casualties of WWII.

Featured Profile Article

Our Stalingrad Winners

At long last, the Stalingrad winners have been revealed.

Current Poll

775 hits since 26 Oct 2021
©1994-2021 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

TMP logo


Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP27 Oct 2021 9:07 p.m. PST

Interesting thread….



Perun Gromovnik28 Oct 2021 3:11 a.m. PST

Newer bet against history 🙂

If germans could won they would

Frederick Supporting Member of TMP28 Oct 2021 5:22 a.m. PST

Might have made more sense if the Germans had let the Russians come to them

pzivh43 Supporting Member of TMP28 Oct 2021 6:27 a.m. PST

What's interesting in the article to me, is the mention that Hitler had been approached by Stalin's reps feeling out a possible negotiated settlement. Now that could have changed things on the western front!

Personal logo Mserafin Supporting Member of TMP28 Oct 2021 12:51 p.m. PST

I've often wondered what effect a 1943 Allied invasion of France would have had on Kursk. Hitler called off the battle when the Allies invaded Sicily. Might he have cancelled Citadelle if the Allies were ashore in France, giving the Germans in Russia a chance to, as Frederick noted above, "let the Russians come to them?"

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP28 Oct 2021 2:12 p.m. PST

Good question….

The Russian Knows in advance and details about Operation Citadelle… so an invation by the Allied in Europe before Hitler lost his panzer… maybe not?


Legionarius28 Oct 2021 4:06 p.m. PST


Aapsych2028 Oct 2021 9:27 p.m. PST

Why are folks contemplating an alternative history where the Nazis win at something and get to be Nazis longer?

I hope it's not because they actually like the Nazis and the ideas they stand for, so dream of a scenario in which those ideas and actions become enduring? Because if so, what does that say?

donlowry29 Oct 2021 9:26 a.m. PST

Do you really think anyone plays "Nazis" and "Commies," as opposed to Germans and Soviets? It's a WAR game, not a politics game.

Old Glory Sponsoring Member of TMP29 Oct 2021 9:30 a.m. PST

It seems you are making a big reach in your imagination to suggest other people motives?

Russ Dunaway

Personal logo Mserafin Supporting Member of TMP29 Oct 2021 10:51 a.m. PST

Agree with Don and Russ – speculating on historical military what-ifs is not any sort of endorsement of the politics of those involved. I cannot imagine why you think it might.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP29 Oct 2021 2:39 p.m. PST

Me too….


Only Warlock31 Oct 2021 6:54 a.m. PST

Aapsycho20, no. That's a dumb question.

This is a forum about wargames and people looking at different outcomes from different decisions, OBVIOUSLY. People also talk about Napoleonic battles, naval battles, medieval battles the same way.

If you are just trying to stir the pot to cause trouble please go elsewhere.

mkenny31 Oct 2021 9:49 a.m. PST

This is a forum about wargames and people looking at different outcomes from different decisions,

I can not speak about any other period but for WW2 the overwhelming (I would say 90%+) 'What Ifs'posted on the Internet are aimed at refighting WW2 so Germany wins.

Old Glory Sponsoring Member of TMP31 Oct 2021 10:54 a.m. PST

Most of the Waterloo "what ifs" is about the French winning ?
That is because the British won?
The British winning is not a "what if."
Same with Gettysburg,Alesia, etc, etc, etc???

Russ Dunaway

mkenny31 Oct 2021 3:36 p.m. PST

I must have missed those 1000s of 'What Ifs' where it is assumed the Allies defeat The Invasion Of Norway or Germany is defeated by Russia in 1941……………………

Marcus Brutus31 Oct 2021 7:06 p.m. PST

I don't know about Norway but I've always wondered about a different Russian strategy in 1941 and what difference it might have made on the outcome of the Russian War.

I think most "what ifs" ask the question what it would have taken to win the battle/war from the losing sides point of view. So yes, what could the French have done in 1815 to win the battle of Waterloo.

Personal logo 4th Cuirassier Supporting Member of TMP01 Nov 2021 4:31 a.m. PST

The most plausible what-ifs whereby Germany does not lose, or still loses but not as badly, are IMHO the ones where the counterfactuals are political rather than military.

That is, an alternative military position from which Germany could win in 1941 is if Stalin were deposed and replaced by someone prepared to concede territory for peace. That in turn would have been facilitated if Churchill weren't in charge of the Commonwealth. His likely alternative, Halifax, might well have cut a deal in 1940 that enabled a stronger Barbarossa.

When you take it the battlefield, though, you always end up with the conclusion that even if the Germans had somehow won the battle of X, they'd just have lost a different one, the battle of Y, later and instead.

This is most obvious with the Pacific naval campaign, where it was simply a matter of how long it takes the USN to deploy 24 fleet carriers against Japan's 6 or 8. It's less stark with WW2 Germany but it's the same.

Old Glory Sponsoring Member of TMP01 Nov 2021 10:32 a.m. PST

Actual facts--- and "counterfactuals" of war all involve elements that are political.

Russ Dunaway

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.