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

Interesting thread….

link

Armand

Newer bet against history 🙂

If germans could won they would

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

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!

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?"

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?

Armand

No

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?

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

Aapsycho20
It seems you are making a big reach in your imagination to suggest other people motives?

Russ Dunaway

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.

Me too….

Armand

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.

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.

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

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……………………

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.

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.

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

Russ Dunaway