Was the battle of Kursk really a decisive Soviet victory? - Page 7 - Historum

Celticguy · November 8th, 2009, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edgewaters

This is "what-if", not what actually happened. Probably, if, maybe ... what actually happened was that Kursk cost them the ability to conduct offensives in the East for the rest of the war. We can ponder other ways in which this might have happened, other courses of action which may have had the same result, but what DID happen was Kursk.

What else might have happened doesn't change whether what did happen was decisive or not.

I am not talking about "what-if". I am simply saying that with or without the kursk offensive the opportunity or ability for the germans to mount an offensive on the eastern front was drawing to a close regardless. It was russian strategy that determined german offensive ability moreso than german strength.

The kursk as I have said already cost the russians massively even moreso than the germans. Without the Kursk the russians would have mounted an offensive of their own in that region which would have inflicted great losses on the germans in any case.

**Edgewaters** · November 8th, 2009, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celticguy

I am not talking about "what-if". I am simply saying that with or without the kursk offensive the opportunity or ability for the germans to mount an offensive on the eastern front was drawing to a close regardless.

Perhaps, but there is no "without". That's a what-if. Kursk happened. Before Kursk, the Germans had the capability to mount an offensive. Afterwards, they didn't. It's really that simple.

Quote:

Without the Kursk the russians would have mounted an offensive of their own in that region which would have inflicted great losses on the germans in any case.

This is another "what-if". There is no 'without Kursk'.

Celticguy · November 13th, 2009, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edgewaters

Perhaps, but there is no "without". That's a what-if. Kursk happened. Before Kursk, the Germans had the capability to mount an offensive. Afterwards, they didn't. It's really that simple.

This is another "what-if". There is no 'without Kursk'.

Not really, before kursk the soviet army deliberately allowed the germans to attack as I have already stated. Afterwards they just didn't get the opportunity as the russians learned from the mistake they made at kursk and realised an offensive policy was best.

There is always a capability to mount an offensive, the ability to mount a successful offensive is the real issue.