Updated Sunday 15 May, 2011 12:18 PM

   Headlines  |  Alternate Histories  |  International Edition

Home Page


Alternate Histories

International Edition

List of Updates

Want to join?

Join Writer Development Section

Writer Development Member Section

Join Club ChangerS


Chris Comments

Book Reviews


Letters To The Editor


Links Page

Terms and Conditions



Alternate Histories

International Edition

Alison Brooks



Other Stuff


If Baseball Integrated Early


Today in Alternate History

This Day in Alternate History Blog








Without a Citadel

The Battle of Kursk may not be as significant a German defeat as Stalingrad, but it was extremely important nonetheless.  It destroyed thousands of German tanks for little purpose, shattered a number of German divisions and ensured that the Germans could not hope to match the soviets as they advanced westwards. 

Let’s imagine that Adolf follows his gut and cancels the attack.  The Germans don’t launch the attack, but remain in their lines.  How long would it be before the soviets realise the attack has been cancelled?  Probably not long (Ultra + spies) and then they need to strike west if the Germans will not hit first.  Let’s have a soviet offensive against the Germans three weeks after OTL Kursk. 

The soviets would not have the advantages they’d have a year later against Army Group Centre.  They’d be closer to parity in tank numbers with the Germans, the Germans would have had an extra month to iron out the bugs in the new tank designs and Stalin would not quite have realised that he was no good as an army commander.  Unless Hitler does something really stupid, the Germans will smash the soviet attack, causing a very high death toll and probably knock the soviets back a few miles.  Manstian would launch counterattacks, but would bump into the very hard soviet defence lines and probably gain little ground. 

Therefore, at the end of 1943, the soviets have gained very little new ground, while the allies will have secured Sicily and (maybe) south Italy.  Hitler would have extra resources to send to Italy, so the allies would probably not have a secure foothold and would indeed be at great risk of being pushed out of Italy.  Does this avert D-Day?  Ike would want it to go ahead as planned, but Churchill would want Italy secured first, and the allies might fall out over supplying the Italian Front. 

The soviets position is considerably worse in this TL than OTL.  They’ve lost several million men for very little territory, which ends the possibility of further offensives.  They need to rebuild as quickly as possible, which means that the Red Army will not improve for at least another year.  Historically, at this point (or thereabouts), the Germans began experimenting with limited forces from Russia and the subject regions.  In this timeline, the Germans have a considerably larger base of men to draw on.  That means that the Germans will also be getting stronger. 

Economically, the Germans will also be improving.  They’ll have more time to improve the Panther and Tiger tanks, as well as more grounds to build aircraft.  That gives them a better chance of dimmishing the allied air offensive, which makes them stronger as time goes by. 

The allies will probably launch D-Day or something similar in late 1944.  This would be a more American effort with only token British participation (Brits needed in Italy).  The Germans would be tougher and the Americans less experienced.  (I flip a coin – German victory.)  The Germans drive the Americans back into the sea. 

Now what?  Assuming that the allies cannot launch a repeat attempt in 1944, the Germans will have an extra nine months to exploit their occupied regions and concentrated on the eastern front.  Stalin’s losses will head upwards and he’ll at least consider the possibility of a separate peace, leaving the Germans with Poland, the Baltics and parts of the occupied USSR.  That betrayal means that the allies would have to make peace soon as well – or go nuclear. 


Hit Counter

Discussion Forum