Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-7559950-20130911012534/@comment-3428312-20140710225619

Lordganon wrote: I am aware of that, yet that scenario went against dozens of posts on here.

Reasoning has been posted several times now. In essence, no way for the Germans to beat the Soviets. And Kursk? Soviets knew about it in advance. Weren't stupid, either. So? Just saying something is ASB does not make so, there has to be a solid reasoning for it other than "I just say so!". As well, no reasoning pertaining to what I outlined had been posted until this point. Now, let's move on to your arguement regarding my Kursk scenario.

First and foremost, I don't think you even read my scenario or else you wouldn't have stated those two last sentences. As I stated within the opening paragraphs, the Soviets won at Kursk due to Hitler repeatedly delaying the start of Citadelle. These delays allowed the Soviets to learn of the impending assualt and enabled them to build a strong defensive network that ultimately ground the Heer's assualt down. If the Germans had started the offensive on time, as I stated, they wouldn't have had to face these defensive fortifications and would have had the element of suprise. Add in the OTL reinforcements that Hitler sent to North Africa instead being diverted to assist in the operation, and thus a German victory is unavoidable.

Now, as I also noted, a successful German offensive entails as much as 1/5 of the Red Army being destroyed. In OTL, the Soviets were in their first manpower crisis of the war before Kursk and their recapture of eastern Ukraine temporarily put it off until right before Bagration. Thus, they are hard-pressed to replace their losses in this ATL. Stalin will recognize this, and he will be forced to seek an armstice like he considered in OTL in early 1943 (Just this one historical tidbit refutes your claim a German victory is impossible).

I do believe this sufficently squashes the claim of ASB.