Again even with BagrationHitler was partly at fault, the Kommandant of the Armee gruppe Mittel, a man appointed by Hitler becasue not of his military skills but because of his absolute loyalty to him
He successfully repelled 2 RKKA offensives as a commander of army group though. But failed at third.
had asked Hitler to shorten his front as there was a bulge which he feared the Soviets would use to make a pincer attack against his forces from the Baltic area and from the Ukraine. Hitler , faithful to the end to his never yield an inch policy, refused putting the AGM in danger.
In 1943 the Soviet forces didn't make anything to shorten Kursk bulge too, but prepared and successfully defended against the German offensive.
It sounds a bit funny
Why? From 1943 every German offensive either failed (Kursk, Narew, Balaton) or ended in a stalemate.
So, du u think that Soviet Union was a winner with German without help of allies?
After Stalingrad and Kursk the defeat of German forces was only a matter of time. It would took maybe a year longer and cost a lot more of human lives though.
As my point, would be better to say that Nazi German was overrun by Allies
I think it would be better to say that Axis nations were overrun by Allies.
Just because someone is appointed for political skills doesn't mean they can't get lucky or that his soldiers won't fight hard. For example, most officers in the US Army during Desert Storm 1 were commissioned because of their political status within the Army chain of command, yet the Americans still mopped the floor with the Iraqi's. Every offensive after 1943 was fought against an enemy with vast numerical superiority and with massive handicaps, such as fuel shortages, manpower shortages, material shortages, ect. Attributing the German failures to soviet soldiers being "better" is about 10% of the story. If anything, they lost because their factories and refineries were being bombed into submission and the Allies in the West had opened up another two fronts for which the germans had to defend.
Stalingrad was a result of Hitlers' stupidness, but Kursk had little to do with the Russians in terms of victory. The same day as Prokhorovka, the Allies invaded Sicily, causing Italy to fold. Hitler ordered an end to Citadelle and sent Model's forces to Kesserling in Italy while leaving Manstein extremely vulnerable in the South. The Soviets banked heavily on this twist of events and the rest is history. Without the Allies, the Soviets would've lost 70% of their entire armored corps in the Kursk pocket, as well as a decent chunk of their motorized divisions, because Model would've stayed in the North and Manstein would've closed the pocket after destroying the Soviet reserves on the 10th.
Even had the soviets won at Kursk, there would've been nothing stopping the German Industrial machine without the Allies. Their cities would've remained un touched by war, especially the Industrial parks of Northwest Germany and France, and a large chunk of their army could've been used to instead been used against the Soviets in the East, especially heavy equipment like Tiger 2's or Jagdtigers. Without the Allies, the war would've ended in a German Victory or a stalemate, costing the Soviets millions of more lives.
For example, the V1's and V2's being used against the Allies would've been used against the Soviets, as well as the majority of the German Fighter-arm. Many of the German armored units and Fallschimjager regiments would've been present in Russia during 1944, not the French coast