[joey703]

for example, assuming "STALINGRAD was not the turning point in the East, it was KURSK, in July 1943, 6 months AFTER Stalingrad, followed by the Soviet Summer Offensive after it, that spelled doom for the Germans in the East, they RECOVERED from Stalingrad, but could not recover from the losses suffered at Kursk, and never regained the initiative after that." were true, which clearly is not. Stalingrad was the point where it no longer mattered what the Germans had and which battles they might win (such as a Kursk), but at that point, it was set that the Russians would win. What was not set was how long it would take...

[tcrlaf]

were true, which clearly is not.”

Ummmh.... NO, IT WAS NOT, the Germans MAINTAINED THE Strategic OFFENSIVE INITIATIVE for another 6 months after the Stalingrad lines stabilized.

That initiative was lost at Kursk, AND in Sicily.

Kursk began on July 4, the Invasion of Sicily began on July 9. Air and Ground assets, (especially fighters and Tac bombers), that were to support the 2nd and 3rd phases of the Kursk Offensive, Operation Citadel, were diverted to Southern Italy.

40% of the German Air Groups committed to Citadel (3 entire Air Corps) were diverted to Sicily.

Until that point, the Germans had been able to maintain strategic inititaive in the east. After that, it became a losing game.

Guderian acknowledged this point very clearly in his book. The losses of Stalingrad were made good, but after Kursk, they could no longer be made whole.