If I say Prokhorovka was the biggest tankbattle of WWII that's wrong, right? But when I call it Kursk-campaign, is it still wrong?
Prokhorovka is generally considered to be the largest tank battle of World War 2. The problem is what encompasses a battle. Since the term has no clear definition, the 'biggest battle' is also a bit of a vague term.
Yes, "generally considered", but when I read the research of the Univeristy of Wisconsin (?) of which Kelomola posted some links earlier, then that's a myth.
And Prokhorovka was won by Germans and the campaign by the Soviets, right?
On the southern front of the Kursk salient, the Germans broke through the main Soviet lines and advanced north. To stop them, the Soviet armoured reserves were called in and the two tank armies clashed at the village of Prokhorovka. While the Soviets lost many more tanks and men they did succeed in stopping the Germans and therefore the battle is technically a Soviet victory. So no, the Germans did not win Prokhorovka.
I recall now that the article was about the large Soviet losses indeed, to debunk the myth of the "huge Soviet victory which was created by Soviet propaganda.
But was Kursk the decisive defeat for Germany in the east or not? I mean, after that the Germans never gained much terrain in the USSR anymore, right?
That is certainly a strongly debated topic among historians. If you go by ground gained, I would go as far as to say Stalingrad was the turning point in the east. The only ground gained after Stalingrad was the area around Kharkov and then the tiny amount taken during Operation Zitadelle, which was then immediately lost when the Soviets took to the offensive. Of course, you can also look in terms of offensive potential. Germany certainly managed to gather quite a lot of forces for Zitadelle. If the Soviets didn't already knew the Germans were going to attack at Kursk, this force may have done some serious damage. After Kursk, no large scale offensives were undertaken in the east. And finally, you can look at industrial potential. The Soviet Union certainly had more industrial potential than Germany, so really Germany's only shot at victory was a quicky blitzkrieg victory during Barbarossa. When Barbarossa failed, they pretty much lost the eastern front. Pick one you like. I always fancy Stalingrad the turning point, because it's closer to the other turning points of World War 2 (which I consider Midway and El Alamein), but of course those are subject to your own interpretations as well.
After Stalingrad the Germans didn't gain much ground anymore, but the book the kids use to learn history says "after the defeat at Stalingrad, the retreat began on the entire Russian front". And that's where I disagree, as that retreat didn't start until after Kursk, right? I mean, the Kursk campaign was a German offensive so "retreat on entire front" isn't true. After Kursk there were no (such) offensives anymore.
As for turning point, I'd say that was honestly the battle of britian. Once that was lost, there was simply no way of threatening England, and the Soviet Union was going to be going to war with Germany one way or another, was just a matter of time. The moment the Germans couldn't invade and knock England out (from Europe anyways, I highly doubt they would ever have left the war), they lost the war.
I'm not looking for
the turning point, as the kids learn there is a series of turning points (Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbor, El Al, Midway, Barbarossa, Stalingrad and D-Day). I was merely checking the Eastern Front for the moment where the Germans started to retreat definitively.
Thanks for all your answers!
