lottery winner essay

The Lottery

Shirley jackson, ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

The Lottery Literary Analysis – Summary & Analytical Essay

The Lottery, a short story by Shirley Jackson, exposes humanity’s brutal and inhumane actions through different characters. Set in a rural village, the plot highlights how traditional customs and practices can lead to the acceptance of cruel behavior. The Lottery literary analysis essay discusses the dangers of blindly following tradition and the need to question and critically evaluate social norms. It is an important summary of the destructive nature of blindly following rules. The Lottery analysis essay also explores the theme of tradition and its impact on society.

Basically, ‘lottery’ in this story is a yearly occasion in which an individual in the town is chosen at random to be stoned by hi/her allies and family members. Notably, the atmosphere created by Jackson in presentation of the sureness and the norm of the practice of lottery within the village is quite convincing that, this practice was readily welcomed.

The ultimate fate of all the practices presented in this short story is marked by ‘death’, perceived as redeemer for many evils people commit against each other. This paper presents the tools of characterization and the setting of the short story “The Lottery”.

One of the most outstanding tools of characterization in this short-story is actions. Though this story is not dominated by many actions, characterization is well defined by the few actions the characters are involved.

For example, Mrs. Delacroix is brought out in the story as being highly determined and quick tempered lady. This is reflected by her action of selecting a large stone ‘so large that she had to pick it with two hands in anger of ….” (Shirley 76).

More so, the unfolding of events in this short story seems as if Jackson is revealing the hypocrisy and evil-nature of human kind. As stated in the story, “They greeted one another and exchanged bits of gossip…manhandling each other without a flinch of pity…” (Shirley 281). Though the reader of this short story expects the practice of lottery to be beneficial to the villagers in a way, nothing of worth is gained form such practiced of lottery.

It should be noted keenly that, this short story portrays extreme evil committed in just ordinary manner, which implies an underlying evil of man. This quite evident in the way such evils presented in this short story are happening in just friendly atmosphere, reflecting the camouflaging nature of humans.

Despite the short story being not insidious until near its end, the author seems to be foreshadowing this notion of deadliness as brought out through M. Summers, who is in charge of lottery, and his colleague Mr. Graves. The picture brought out of Mr. Summers in this short story makes him seem a respected man as he coordinates various social activities.

This humble nature of Mr. Summers, yet a very dangerous one is reported by Shirley (282) that, “Mr. Summers was very good at all this ….. with one hand resting carelessly on the black box, he seemed very proper and important as he talked interminably to Mr. Graves and the Martins”. Such activities may seem normal with regard to the village norms, but they reflect high degree of human rights violation.

The main characters used in this short story depict the mood of the actual events in this short story. For instance, the name ‘Summers’ symbolizes the fundamental theme of the story, and ultimate outcome of the entire events (Marshall 3).

Further, the name of Mr. Summer’s colleague, Mr. Graves, who happens to be his assistant in activities of lottery, prefigures iniquity of ordinary people. Basically, imagery is clearly brought out in this short story by having the author give the names of the main characters portray the entire theme.

Together with hypocrisy, ‘lottery’ in this short story presents the weak nature of human nature. Considering that this act of lottery had been a routine in this village for many years, no one seems to question its negative impacts in the general human welfare.

As reflected in Shirley (282), “There’s always been a lottery and no one has been nervous about it…everyone goes on with it…” reveals how hypocritical the people in the village were.

According to Hyman (35) no one had expressed fear of disgust of the act, despite it being depriving human nature of their human rights for survival. The kind of evil and malevolence presented in this short story goes beyond human violence since all is done calmly and in unity.

As Marshall (3) suggests, the use of protagonism in this short story is a real reflection of how people are deeply engraved in hypocrisy and wickedness. Ironically, Mrs. Hutchinson, who emerges to protest and rebel against lottery, emerges as the victim of the act of lottery the day she was going to protest against it.

This retracts all acts of rebellion against the act of lottery, and everything goes on as usual. Though before drawing from her fellow women to face her fate she seems happy, Mrs. Hutchison she is brought out to be happy to leave to see the way her fellow humans are mistreated (Hyman 46).

This reveals the way oppressive norms and cultures deem hopes of liberalization from such oppressive cultures. Particularly, the death of Mrs. Hutchison marks the continuity of evil nature of human kind eternally, despite their facial appearance seeming friendly.

Generally, the unfolding of the short story reflects the way humans mistreat each other, presumably in conformation to cultural beliefs and practices. Since the act of lottery as presented in this short story seems to undermine human nature, people seem to condone such evils with less regard on their negative impacts.

As the story ends, the ‘light of hope’ for liberalization, Mrs. Hutchison, dies which implies the unending nature of human wicked nature and evil. Generally, the short story reflects the societal malpractices committed by mankind to each other, as though they are ordinary events.

Works Cited

Hyman, Stanley. The Presentation of Evil in “The Lottery”. New Jersey: Bantam Publishing Co., 2000.

Marshall, Garry. Analysis of “The Lottery” a Short Story by Shirley Jackson. New York: Lori Voth Publishers, 2003.

Shirley, Jackson. The Lottery. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishers, 1948.

Further Study: FAQ

📌 who are the lottery characters, 📌 what is the main theme of the lottery, 📌 what are the two symbols in the lottery, 📌 what is the meaning behind the story the lottery.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 28). The Lottery Literary Analysis – Summary & Analytical Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/literary-analysis-of-the-lottery/

"The Lottery Literary Analysis – Summary & Analytical Essay." IvyPanda , 28 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/literary-analysis-of-the-lottery/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'The Lottery Literary Analysis – Summary & Analytical Essay'. 28 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "The Lottery Literary Analysis – Summary & Analytical Essay." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/literary-analysis-of-the-lottery/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Lottery Literary Analysis – Summary & Analytical Essay." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/literary-analysis-of-the-lottery/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Lottery Literary Analysis – Summary & Analytical Essay." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/literary-analysis-of-the-lottery/.

• Suspense Narrative in "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson
• Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery": Elements of the Story
• Marxist Criticism on The Lottery by Shirley Jackson Essay
• Forget Tradition: “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson
• "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson: A Short Masterpiece
• "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson: A Literary Analysis
• Literary Analysis of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery
• Literary Analysis on "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson Using Foreshadowing
• Annotated Bibliography on the “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson
• Characters' Relationship in ”The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson
• Learning to Stereotype: The Lifelong Romance
• Conflicting Motives in “Hippocrates”
• The Tell-Tale Heart (1843)
• Symbolism in play The Minister’s Black Veil by Nathaniel Hawthorne
• Character Analysis of Connie in “Where are you going, Where have you been?”

Analysis of 'The Lottery' by Shirley Jackson

Taking Tradition to Task

ThoughtCo / Hilary Allison

• Short Stories
• Best Sellers
• Classic Literature
• Plays & Drama
• Shakespeare
• Children's Books
• Ph.D., English, State University of New York at Albany
• B.A., English, Brown University

When Shirley Jackson's chilling story "The Lottery" was first published in 1948 in The New Yorker , it generated more letters than any work of fiction the magazine had ever published. Readers were furious, disgusted, occasionally curious, and almost uniformly bewildered.

The public outcry over the story can be attributed, in part, to The New Yorker 's practice at the time of publishing works without identifying them as fact or fiction. Readers were also presumably still reeling from the horrors of World War II. Yet, though times have changed and we all now know the story is fiction, "The Lottery" has maintained its grip on readers decade after decade.

"The Lottery" is one of the most widely known stories in American literature and American culture. It has been adapted for radio, theater, television, and even ballet. The Simpsons television show included a reference to the story in its "Dog of Death" episode (season three).

"The Lottery" is available to subscribers of The New Yorker and is also available in The Lottery and Other Stories , a collection of Jackson's work with an introduction by the writer A. M. Homes. You can hear Homes read and discuss the story with fiction editor Deborah Treisman at The New Yorker for free.

Plot Summary

"The Lottery" takes place on June 27, a beautiful summer day, in a small New England village where all the residents are gathering for their traditional annual lottery. Though the event first appears festive, it soon becomes clear that no one wants to win the lottery. Tessie Hutchinson seems unconcerned about the tradition until her family draws the dreaded mark. Then she protests that the process wasn't fair. The "winner," it turns out, will be stoned to death by the remaining residents. Tessie wins, and the story closes as the villagers—including her own family members—begin to throw rocks at her.

Dissonant Contrasts

The story achieves its terrifying effect primarily through Jackson's skillful use of contrasts , through which she keeps the reader's expectations at odds with the action of the story.

The picturesque setting contrasts sharply with the horrific violence of the conclusion. The story takes place on a beautiful summer day with flowers "blossoming profusely" and the grass "richly green." When the boys begin gathering stones, it seems like typical, playful behavior, and readers might imagine that everyone has gathered for something pleasant like a picnic or a parade.

Just as fine weather and family gatherings might lead us to expect something positive, so, too, does the word "lottery," which usually implies something good for the winner. Learning what the "winner" really gets is all the more horrifying because we have expected the opposite.

Like the peaceful setting, the villagers' casual attitude as they make small talk— some even cracking jokes—belies the violence to come. The narrator's perspective seems completely aligned with the villagers', so events are narrated in the same matter-of-fact, everyday manner that the villagers use.

The narrator notes, for instance, that the town is small enough that the lottery can be "through in time to allow the villagers to get home for noon dinner." The men stand around talking of ordinary concerns like "planting and rain, tractors and taxes." The lottery, like "the square dances, the teenage club, the Halloween program," is just another of the "civic activities" conducted by Mr. Summers.

Readers may find that the addition of murder makes the lottery quite different from a square dance, but the villagers and the narrator evidently do not.

Hints of Unease

If the villagers were thoroughly numb to the violence—if Jackson had misled her readers entirely about where the story was heading—I don't think "The Lottery" would still be famous. But as the story progresses, Jackson gives escalating clues to indicate that something is amiss.

Before the lottery starts, the villagers keep "their distance" from the stool with the black box on it, and they hesitate when Mr. Summers asks for help. This is not necessarily the reaction you might expect from people who are looking forward to the lottery.

It also seems somewhat unexpected that the villagers talk as if drawing the tickets is difficult work that requires a man to do it. Mr. Summers asks Janey Dunbar, "Don't you have a grown boy to do it for you, Janey?" And everyone praises the Watson boy for drawing for his family. "Glad to see your mother's got a man to do it," says someone in the crowd.

The lottery itself is tense. People do not look around at each other. Mr. Summers and the men drawing slips of paper grin "at one another nervously and humorously."

On first reading, these details might strike the reader as odd, but they can be explained in a variety of ways -- for instance, that people are very nervous because they want to win. Yet when Tessie Hutchinson cries, "It wasn't fair!" readers realize there has been an undercurrent of tension and violence in the story all along.

What Does "The Lottery" Mean?

As with many stories, there have been countless interpretations of "The Lottery." For instance, the story has been read as a comment on World War II or as a Marxist critique of an entrenched social order . Many readers find Tessie Hutchinson to be a reference to Anne Hutchinson , who was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for religious reasons. (But it's worth noting that Tessie doesn't really protest the lottery on principle—she protests only her own death sentence.)

Regardless of which interpretation you favor, "The Lottery" is, at its core, a story about the human capacity for violence, especially when that violence is couched in an appeal to tradition or social order.

Jackson's narrator tells us that "no one liked to upset even as much tradition as was represented by the black box." But although the villagers like to imagine that they're preserving tradition, the truth is that they remember very few details, and the box itself is not the original. Rumors swirl about songs and salutes, but no one seems to know how the tradition started or what the details should be.

The only thing that remains consistent is the violence, which gives some indication of the villagers' priorities (and perhaps all of humanity's). Jackson writes, "Although the villagers had forgotten the ritual and lost the original black box, they still remembered to use stones."

One of the starkest moments in the story is when the narrator bluntly states, "A stone hit her on the side of the head." From a grammatical standpoint, the sentence is structured so that no one actually threw the stone—it's as if the stone hit Tessie of its own accord. All the villagers participate (even giving Tessie's young son some pebbles to throw), so no one individually takes responsibility for the murder. And that, to me, is Jackson's most compelling explanation of why this barbaric tradition manages to continue.

• Analysis of 'Paranoia' by Shirley Jackson
• Analysis of William Faulkner's "Dry September"
• Writing About Literature: Ten Sample Topics for Comparison & Contrast Essays
• Humor and Violence in Flannery O'Connor's 'A Good Man Is Hard to Find'
• Practice in Using Quotation Marks Correctly
• Biography of Eudora Welty, American Short-Story Writer
• Famous Last Words: Fictional Characters, Books and Plays
• Analysis of John Updike's "A and P"
• Analysis of Margaret Atwood's "Happy Endings"
• Analysis of 'Snow' by Charles Baxter
• Analysis of 'Gryphon' by Charles Baxter
• 'The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas' Analysis
• Analysis of 'The School' by Donald Barthelme
• Analysis of "Oliver's Evolution" by John Updike
• Who Paid for the Statue of Liberty?

What I Learned When I Won the $112 Million Lottery

Money changes things—fast.

When I found out I had won $112 million dollars in the California Mega Millions jackpot eight years ago, I wasn't even watching the TV. The winning numbers had been announced a few days before, but my kids and I had forgotten to check. Then my father called and told me to look at my ticket. The random numbers aligned.

I felt elated, like I was floating.

When you win the lottery, you can either opt to go to the state lottery office or receive the check in the mail (you can also accept one lump sum or installments). My brother, father, and I decided to go collect the check, in one lump sum, in person. It was more exciting that way.

On the way to the state lottery office, I remember thinking that this money was coming at precisely the right time—and that I had willed it into my possession.

I'd generally played the lottery about two to three times a month, and friends and family always said, "Oh, you know, a lot of people try and win." And I would always say, "Yeah, but I'm  going  to win." I had been focusing on winning for so long that when I did finally win, it didn't even feel random; it felt like I had made it happen.

When I did finally win, it didn't even feel random; it felt like I had made it happen.

My trick? Whenever I bought my ticket, I would visualize winning. At first, I picked my own numbers. But then, as I would visualize the money as my own, I'd pick whatever quick, random numbers flashed into my head.

I even chose that exact number: $112 million. I  decided  that I would win that amount.

Stay In The Know

Marie Claire email subscribers get intel on fashion and beauty trends, hot-off-the-press celebrity news, and more. Sign up here.

The first thing I did with my winnings was go house-hunting. I had been living in Hawthorne, California in a 1,100 square foot house raising my late brother's five kids (at the time, they ranged in age from eight to 17 years old). I was working as an account executive with a computer technology firm; I sold specialized software training for computer techs and major corporate organizations. I was financially supporting the kids, myself, as well as helping my dad out here and there where I could. Money was tight but we were okay. I've always known how to work with what I've had.  

When I asked the kids what they would like in our new house, they unanimously said, "a pool!" So I looked for a house with a pool. I found a 4,000 square foot home in the Pacific Palisades that was the house I had always imagined myself in. It wasn't crazy decked out; no huge big backyard. But it felt very open. Nearly 10 years after winning, I'm still living in it and I still love it.

Next, I upgraded my car: I bought a used Mercedes-Benz R-class.

Then I set up a film production company—something else I always envisioned myself doing. A couple of the kids were getting into acting (I had paid for them to take acting courses prior to winning), and one of my daughters was getting a lot of work. I started going with her to different sets where she was filming and getting a good sense of the business.

I had taken a two-day business course at the Hollywood Film Institute with the founder, Dov Simens, about a year before I'd won. I remember being in the class and he asked everyone a question: How many of us had the money to make a film? Some of the class raised their hands. And then, how many of us  intended  to have the money to make a film? I raised my hand for that one.

You have to prepare yourself for wealth.

Later on, I bought a lot of little things: a trainer, a trip to Paris. I've donated to charities I have always admired. But I look back now on the first time I took that business course and realize that I was getting myself prepared for the new life I felt sure I'd have. That's the thing about money: You have to prepare yourself for wealth. You have to mentally prepare for what is going to occur—at least as much as you can.

That's why I think I'm an anomaly as a successful, stable lottery winner. I prepared and recruited people like financial advisors and lawyers (who I began researching before even winning) to help me get in the correct mindset of possessing this much money.  

My financial situation has shifted since winning the lottery. I've had many losses: businesses that have gone south and people who have stolen from me. But I've learned to trust myself more than anything. My intuition has become my most valuable asset. 

And yes, I still play the lottery once a week. After all, it's only a couple of dollars.

Cynthia P. Stafford won the California Lottery in 2007. She is the CEO of Queen Nefertari Productions and serves on the Board of Directors of The Geffen Theatre in Los Angeles. 

Follow  Marie Claire on Instagram  for the latest celeb news, pretty pics, funny stuff, and an insider POV.

Here's everything you need to know.

By Gabrielle Ulubay Published 25 April 24

Sponsor Content Created With KilgourMD

By Emma Walsh Published 25 April 24

The "Bridgerton" star is ditching the dating apps.

Amy Domini and her firm, Domini Impact Investments LLC, are inspiring a greater and greener world—one investor at a time.

By Sponsored Published 2 May 22

Yes, maybe you eat paleo and have mastered crow pose, but do you practice financial wellness?

By Sallie Krawcheck Published 13 October 21

The pandemic has completely upended how we do our jobs. This is Marie Claire's guide to navigating your career in a COVID-19 world.

By Megan DiTrolio Published 20 September 21

The founder and CEO of experiences booking website Peek.com has the chic casual look on lock.

By Megan DiTrolio Published 13 September 21

Your Zoom game has never been stronger.

By Rachel Epstein Published 12 September 21

There's no such thing as a completely risk-free investment, but these five money-makers are pretty darn close.

By Sallie Krawcheck Published 26 August 21

In Marie Claire's latest money column, we break down one reader's plan to make a life-changing purchase. This month, two Capital One pros help Tara, a fintech program manager, figure out how to afford her very first car.

By Megan DiTrolio Published 19 July 21

With the demand for mystical services on the rise, a growing number of women are channeling their spiritual gifts into full-blown careers.

By Tatiana Boncompagni Published 7 June 21

• Contact Future's experts
• Advertise Online
• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Cookies policy

Marie Claire is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

Essay on If I Win A Lottery

Students are often asked to write an essay on If I Win A Lottery in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on If I Win A Lottery

My feelings.

If I win a lottery, I would feel very happy and excited. It would be like a dream come true. I often think about what I would do with so much money, and it makes me smile.

With the lottery money, I would first help my family. I’d save some for my education and future. I’d also give some to charity to help others who need it.

Being Responsible

Winning a lot of money is a big deal. I would need to be careful and smart about using it. I’d talk to my parents and maybe a money expert to make good choices.

Of course, I’d buy something fun for myself and my friends. Maybe a new bike or video games. It’s okay to enjoy some of the money too!

Winning a lottery would be amazing. I’d feel happy, help my family, give to others, and also enjoy some treats!

Also check:

• Paragraph on If I Win A Lottery

250 Words Essay on If I Win A Lottery

My dream lottery win.

Imagine waking up one day to find out you have won a lottery. It would be one of the most exciting moments! If I win a lottery, my life would change in many ways. I want to share what I would do with the money.

Helping My Family

Firstly, I would help my family. We could pay off our house loan and buy a new car. My parents work very hard, and I would love to give them a chance to rest. We could also save some money for my education and for my siblings, so we don’t have to worry about school fees.

Giving to Charity

Next, I would give part of the money to people who need it more than me. There are many kids and families who don’t have homes or enough food. I would donate to charities that help these people. It feels good to help others, and with a lot of money, I could help a lot.

Of course, I would also use some of the money to have fun. Maybe I would travel with my family to places we’ve never been, like Disneyland or the beaches in Hawaii. It’s important to enjoy life and make happy memories.

Saving for the Future

Lastly, I would save some money for the future. You never know what might happen, and having savings means you are ready for anything. It would be smart to talk to someone who knows about money to make good choices.

Winning a lottery would be amazing. It would let me help my family, give to others, have fun, and save for what’s ahead. It’s nice to dream about what could happen if I win a lottery one day.

500 Words Essay on If I Win A Lottery

My dream of winning the lottery.

Imagine one day you buy a lottery ticket, and soon after, you find out that you’ve won! This thought has crossed my mind many times. Winning a lottery seems like a dream where all of a sudden, you have a lot of money. What would I do if I were that lucky person? Let me share my dreams and plans with you.

Sharing My Happiness

Firstly, I would want to share my happiness with my family. I would sit down with my parents and decide how to use the money wisely. Maybe we would pay off our house loan or save for my college education. I would also set aside some money for my brother’s or sister’s future. It’s important to make sure my family is taken care of before spending on other things.

Helping Others

After making sure my family is secure, I would think about helping other people. There are many who do not have homes, food, or the chance to go to school. I would like to give some money to charities that help children learn and play, or that make sure people have enough to eat. It feels good to help others, and with the lottery money, I could make a big difference.

I know that it’s important not to spend all the money at once. So, I would save a large part of it in a bank. This way, the money can grow over time, and I can use it in the future for important things like education or even starting my own business.

Having Some Fun

Of course, winning the lottery should also mean having some fun! I would love to travel and see different parts of the world. Learning about new cultures, trying new foods, and making friends from different places would be an amazing experience. I might even take my family on a vacation to a place we’ve always wanted to visit.

Investing in Learning

Education is a powerful tool, and with the lottery money, I could learn so much more. I might sign up for classes that teach me how to paint, play a musical instrument, or speak another language. I believe that investing in learning new things is never a waste.

Being Careful

It’s easy to get carried away when you have a lot of money. I would need to be careful and make smart choices. I would talk to people who know about money, like bankers or financial advisors, to help me make the best decisions. It’s important to think about the long term and not just what I want right now.

Winning the lottery can change a person’s life in many ways. If I were to win, my goals would be to take care of my family, help others, save for the future, have some fun, invest in learning, and be smart with the money. While it’s just a dream, thinking about what I would do with a lottery win helps me understand what’s truly important in life. Whether I win or not, these are good plans to have for any money I might earn or receive.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Dream Place Paris
• Essay on If I Were A Bird
• Essay on If I Was Invisible For A Day

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Fantasy of Reviving Nuclear Energy

By Stephanie Cooke

Ms. Cooke is a former editor of Nuclear Intelligence Weekly and the author of “In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age.”

World leaders are not unaware of the nuclear industry’s long history of failing to deliver on its promises or of its weakening vital signs. Yet many continue to act as if a nuclear renaissance could be around the corner, even though nuclear energy’s share of global electricity generation has fallen by almost half from its high of roughly 17 percent in 1996.

In search of that revival, representatives from more than 30 countries gathered in Brussels in March at a nuclear summit hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Belgian government. Thirty-four nations, including the United States and China, agreed “to work to fully unlock the potential of nuclear energy,” including extending the lifetimes of existing reactors, building nuclear power plants and deploying advanced reactors.

Yet even as they did so, there was an acknowledgment of the difficulty of their undertaking. “Nuclear technology can play an important role in the clean energy transition,” Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, told summit attendees. But she added that “the reality today, in most markets, is a reality of a slow but steady decline in market share” for nuclear power.

The numbers underscore that downturn. Solar and wind power together began outperforming nuclear power globally in 2021, and that trend continues as nuclear staggers along. Solar alone added more than 400 gigawatts of capacity worldwide last year, two-thirds more than the previous year. That’s more than the roughly 375 gigawatts of combined capacity of the world’s 415 nuclear reactors, which remained relatively unchanged last year. At the same time, investment in energy storage technology is rapidly accelerating. In 2023, BloombergNEF reported that investors for the first time put more money into stationary energy storage than they did into nuclear.

Still, the drumbeat for nuclear power has become pronounced. At the United Nations climate conference in Dubai in December, the Biden administration persuaded two dozen countries to pledge to triple their nuclear energy capacity by 2050. Those countries included allies of the United States with troubled nuclear programs, most notably France , Britain , Japan and South Korea , whose nuclear bureaucracies will be propped up by the declaration as well as the domestic nuclear industries they are trying to save.

“We are not making the argument to anybody that this is absolutely going to be a sweeping alternative to every other energy source,” John Kerry, the Biden administration climate envoy at the time, said. “But we know because the science and the reality of facts and evidence tell us that you can’t get to net zero 2050 without some nuclear.”

That view has gained traction with energy planners in Eastern Europe who see nuclear as a means of replacing coal, and several countries — including Canada, Sweden, Britain and France — are pushing to extend the operating lifetimes of existing nuclear plants or build additional ones. Some see smaller or more advanced reactors as a means of providing electricity in remote areas or as a means of decarbonizing sectors such as heat, industry and transportation.

So far, most of this remains in early stages, with only three nuclear reactors under construction in Western Europe, two in Britain and one in France, each more than a decade behind schedule. Of the approximately 54 other reactors under construction worldwide as of March, 23 are in China, seven are in India, and three are in Russia, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The total is less than a quarter of the 234 reactors under construction in the peak year of 1979, although 48 of those were later suspended or abandoned.

Even if you agree with Mr. Kerry’s argument, and many energy experts do not, pledging to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 is a little like promising to win the lottery. For the United States, it would mean adding 200 gigawatts of nuclear operating capacity (almost double what the country has ever built) to the current 100 gigawatts or so, generated by more than 90 commercial reactors that have been running an average of 42 years. Globally it would mean tripling the existing capacity built over the past 70 years in less than half that time, in addition to replacing reactors that will shut down before 2050.

The Energy Department estimates the total cost of such an effort in the United States at roughly $700 billion. But David Schlissel , a director at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis , has calculated that the two new reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia — the only new reactors built in the United States in a generation — on average, cost $21.2 billion per gigawatt in today’s dollars. Using that figure as a yardstick, the cost of building 200 gigawatts of new capacity would be far higher: at least $4 trillion, or $6 trillion if you count the additional cost of replacing existing reactors as they age out.

For much less money and in less time, the world could reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of renewables like solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal power and by transmitting, storing and using electricity more efficiently. A recent analysis by the German Environment Agency examined multiple global climate scenarios in which Paris climate agreement targets are met, and it found that renewable energy “is the crucial and primary driver.”

The logic of this approach was attested to at the climate meeting in Dubai, where more than 120 countries signed a more realistic commitment to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030.

There’s a certain inevitability about the U.S. Energy Department’s latest push for more nuclear energy. An agency predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, brought us Atoms for Peace under President Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s in a bid to develop the peaceful side of the atom, hoping it would gain public acceptance of an expanding arsenal of nuclear weapons while supplying electricity too cheap to meter.

Fast-forward 70 years, and you hear a variation on the same theme. Most notably, Ernest Moniz, the energy secretary under President Barack Obama, argues that a vibrant commercial nuclear sector is necessary to sustain U.S. influence in nuclear weapons nonproliferation efforts and global strategic stability. As a policy driver, this argument might explain in part why the government continues to push nuclear power as a climate solution, despite its enormous cost and lengthy delivery time.

China and Russia are conspicuously absent from the list of signatories to the Dubai pledge to triple nuclear power, although China signed the declaration in Brussels. China’s nuclear program is growing faster than that of any other country, and Russia dominates the global export market for reactors with projects in countries new to commercial nuclear energy, such as Turkey, Egypt and Bangladesh, as well as Iran.

Pledges and declarations on a global stage allow world leaders a platform to be seen to be doing something to address climate change, even if, as is the case with nuclear, they lack the financing and infrastructure to succeed. But their support most likely means that substantial sums of money — much of it from taxpayers and ratepayers — will be wasted on perpetuating the fantasy that nuclear energy will make a difference in a meaningful time frame to slow global warming.

The U.S. government is already poised to spend billions of dollars building small modular and advanced reactors and keeping aging large ones running. But two such small reactor projects based on conventional technologies have already failed. Which raises the question: Will future projects based on far more complex technologies be more viable? Money for such projects — provided mainly under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act — could be redirected in ways that do more for the climate and do it faster, particularly if planned new nuclear projects fail to materialize.

There is already enough potential generation capacity in the United States seeking access to the grid to come close to achieving President Biden’s 2035 goal of a zero-carbon electricity sector, and 95 percent of it is solar, battery storage and wind. But these projects face a hugely constrained transmission system, regulatory and financial roadblocks and entrenched utility interests, enough to prevent many of them from ever providing electricity, according to a report released last year by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Even so, existing transmission capacity can be doubled by retrofitting transmission lines with advanced conductors, which would offer at least a partial way out of the gridlock for renewables, in addition to storage, localized distribution and improved management of supply and demand.

What’s missing are leaders willing to buck their own powerful nuclear bureaucracies and choose paths that are far cheaper, less dangerous and quicker to deploy. Without them, we are doomed to more promises and wasteful spending by nuclear proponents who have repeatedly shown that they can talk but can’t deliver.

Stephanie Cooke is a former editor of Nuclear Intelligence Weekly and the author of “In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , X and Threads .

A lottery winner's lucky dilemma: lump sum or annual payments? Here's what to know.

It's the difficult decision we'd all like to face.

Do I take my lottery winnings in a lump sum or spread them out in annuity payments over time?

There are pros and cons to either approach, experts say.

They also say that people overwhelmingly opt for the big payday up front.

Most opt for the big payout — by far

A Massachusetts Lottery spokesman estimated more than 95% of the winners eligible to make the choice want the big pay day.

They say they want the money now, thinking investments can be made and expenditures erased, he said.

Giant national jackpot games Powerball and Mega Millions offer the big lump sum or annual payments over 30 years.

Massachusetts' Megabucks offers a 20-year annuity payout as an option.

There are other payouts with games like the multi-state Lucky for Life Game, where the top prize is $1,000 a day for life. There's also a $25,000 per year for life win. And both have cash options, as well.

On a $1 million payout you would get $650,000 — before taxes

But, in general, the cash up front or annuity options are available to the bigger winners, including instant ticket winners in Massachusetts of $1 million or more. Those annuities are structured over 20 years.

On a $1 million payout, you would get $650,000 in a lump sum before taxes.

If you choose the annuity version, you would get 20 annual payments of $50,000 before taxes. The total after 20 years would be $710,000 after taxes.

Egg-cellent: Westport lottery player hits it big Easter weekend. See what they won.

Annual payments also have advantages

Robert Pagliarini, founder of financial managament firm Pacific Wealth Advisors and author of "The Sudden Wealth Solution," said it's a given that most people opt for the cash payout.

And it has its advantages, he said, chief among them being "you get all the money up front and can do whatever you want with it."

But, he added, "I would argue that is the exact reason not to take the lump sum — because you get all the money up front and you can do anything you want with it."

Sudden wealth can be challenging — mistakes mean 'game over'

Pagliarini said sudden wealth can be extremely challenging.

"And so I love the annuity option," he said.

It provides a safety net for the nouveau riche "basically, to screw up, year after year after year. Every 12 months you're going to get a new deposit into your bank account."

Even after a decade of unwise or dumb financial moves, those annuity payments will still be coming in.

And, it's hoped, you will have learned by then how to manage your wealth wisely.

On the other hand, "You start making mistakes with the lump sum, and you spend that money down, it's game over," he said.

Feeling lucky: New Bedford woman wins RI lottery using late grandmother's numbers

Managing your own future with the lump sum

Mark A. Quintal is the CEO of A.G. Quintal Investment Co. at 2177 Acushnet Ave. in New Bedford, which was founded by his father in 1963.

It's a full-service brokerage firm offering investment and financial management services.

He said lump sum vs. annuities can be more than just a simple financial decision.

"Would a person be prone to blow it all immediately versus taking some over time?" he asked.

Personally, he said, he would choose the lump sum.

"I'd rather take it in hand and manage my own destiny and future," he said. "There's a time value of money element to it."

Quintal added, "That would be my two cents on it."

The most comprehensive and authoritative history site on the Internet.

Battle of Kursk: Germany’s Lost Victory in World War II

Following their disastrous defeat at Stalingrad during the winter of 1942-43, the German armed forces launched a climactic offensive in the East known as Operation Citadel on July 4,1943. The climax of Operation Citadel, the Battle of Kursk, involved as many as 6,000 tanks, 4,000 aircraft and 2 million fighting men and is remembered as the greatest tank battle in history. The high-water mark of the battle was the massive armor engagement at Prochorovka (also spelled Prokhorovka), which began on July 12. But while historians have categorized Prochorovka as a victory of improved Soviet tactics over German firepower and heavy tanks, new evidence casts the struggle at the ‘gully of death’ in a very different light.

The Germans’ goal during Citadel was to pinch off a large salient in the Eastern Front that extended 70 miles toward the west. Field Marshal Günther von Kluge’s Army Group Center would attack from the north flank of the bulge, with Colonel General Walther Model’s Ninth Army leading the effort, General Hans Zorn’s XLVI Panzer Corps on the right flank and Maj. Gen. Josef Harpe’s XLI Panzer Corps on the left. General Joachim Lemelsen’s XLVII Panzer Corps planned to drive toward Kursk and meet up with Field Marshal Erich von Manstein’s Army Group South, Col. Gen. Hermann Hoth’s Fourth Panzer Army and the Kempf Army, commanded by General Werner Kempf.

Opposing the German forces were the Soviet Central Front, led by General Konstantin K. Rokossovsky, and the Voronezh Front, led by General Nikolai F. Vatutin. The Central Front, with the right wing strengthened by Lt. Gen. Nikolai P. Pukhov’s Thirteenth Army and Lt. Gen. I.V. Galinin’s Seventeenth Army, was to defend the northern sector. To the south, the Voronezh Front faced the German Army Group South with three armies and two in reserve. The Sixth Guards Army, led by Lt. Gen. Mikhail N. Chistyakov, and the Seventh Guards Army, led by Lt. Gen. M. S. Shumilov, held the center and left wing. East of Kursk, Col. Gen. Ivan S. Konev’s Steppe Military District (renamed Steppe Front on July 10, 1943) was to hold German breakthroughs, then mount the counteroffensive.

If their plan succeeded, the Germans would encircle and destroy more than five Soviet armies. Such a victory would have forced the Soviets to delay their operations and might have allowed the Wehrmacht desperately needed breathing room on the Eastern Front. Model’s Ninth Army never came close to breaking the Soviet defenses in the north, however, and soon became deadlocked in a war of attrition that it could not win. On the southern flank, Kempf’s III Panzer Corps, commanded by General Hermann Breith, also encountered tough Soviet resistance. By July 11, however, Hoth’s Fourth Panzer Army was in position to capture the town of Prochorovka, secure a bridgehead over the Psel River and advance on Oboyan. The Psel was the last natural barrier between Manstein’s panzers and Kursk. The Fourth Panzer Army’s attack on the town was led by SS General Paul Hausser’s II SS Panzer Corps, General Otto von Knobelsdorff’s XLVIII Panzer Corps and General Ott’s LII Army Corps. Hausser’s corps was made up of three panzer divisions–the 1st Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler (Adolf Hitler’s bodyguard), 2nd SS Das Reich (The Empire) and 3rd SS Totenkopf (Death’s Head). Although all three were technically Panzergrenadier divisions, each had more than 100 tanks when Citadel began. Knobelsdorff’s corps was composed of the 167th and 332nd infantry divisions, the 3rd and 11th panzer divisions, Panzergrenadier Division Grossdeutschland and Panther Brigade Decker, and Ott’s corps contained the 25th and 57th infantry divisions.

Opposing Hausser at Prochorovka was the newly arrived and reinforced Fifth Guards Tank Army, commanded by Lt. Gen. Pavel A. Rotmistrov. The Fifth Guards was the Soviet strategic armored reserve in the south, the last significant uncommitted armored formation in the sector, with more than 650 tanks. The Soviet operational armored reserve, General Mikhail E. Katukov’s First Tank Army, was already in action against Hoth’s Fourth Panzer Army south of the Psel. Katukov’s army had been unable to prevent the Germans from reaching the river, however. His VI Tank Corps, originally equipped with more than 200 tanks, had only 50 left by July 10 and 11, and the other two corps of Katukov’s army also had sustained serious losses. On July 10, the 3rd SS Division Totenkopf , commanded by SS Maj. Gen. Hermann Priess, had established a bridgehead over the Psel, west of Prochorovka. By July 11, the division’s panzer group had crossed the river on pontoon bridges and reached the bridgehead. What was left of Katukov’s armor regrouped to oppose the XLVIII Panzer Corps below Oboyan or counterattack the Psel bridgehead. Reinforced with the XXXIII Rifle Corps and X Tank Corps, Katukov launched continuous attacks on the Totenkopf units on the north bank of the river.

During the evening of July 11, Hausser readied his divisions for an assault on Prochorovka. Totenkopf anchored the left flank of the corps, while Leibstandarte , commanded by SS Maj. Gen. Theodore Wisch, was in the center, assembled west of the town between a rail line and the Psel. Das Reich , commanded by SS Lt. Gen. Walter Krüger, moved into its attack zone on the corps’ right flank, which was several kilometers south of Tetrevino and southwest of Prochorovka.

While Hausser’s SS divisions prepared for battle, there was feverish activity in the Soviet camp as well. On July 11, the Fifth Guards Tank Army arrived in the Prochorovka area, having begun its march on July 7 from assembly areas nearly 200 miles to the east. The army consisted of the XVIII and XXIX Tank Corps and the V Guards Mechanized Corps. Rotmistrov’s 650 tanks were reinforced by the II Tank Corps and II Guards Tank Corps, increasing its strength to about 850 tanks, 500 of which were T-34s. The Fifth Guards’ primary mission was to lead the main post-Kursk counteroffensive, known as Operation Rumyantsev, and its secondary mission was as defensive insurance in the south. The commitment of Rotmistrov’s army at such an early date is stark evidence of Soviet concern about the situation on the Psel. The Fifth Guards’ arrival at the Psel set the stage for the Battle of Prochorovka.

Prochorovka is one of the best-known of the many battles on the Eastern Front during World War II. It has been covered in articles, books and televised historical documentaries, but these accounts vary in accuracy; some are merely incomplete, while others border on fiction. In the generally accepted version of the battle, the three SS divisions attacked Prochorovka shoulder to shoulder, jammed into the terrain between the Psel and the railroad. A total of 500 to 700 German tanks, including dozens of Panzerkampfwagen Mark V Panther medium tanks with 75mm guns and Panzerkampfwagen Mark VI Tiger heavy tanks with deadly 88mm cannons, lumbered forward while hundreds of nimble Soviet T-34 medium tanks raced into the midst of the SS armor and threw the Germans into confusion. The Soviets closed with the panzers, negating the Tigers’ 88mm guns, outmaneuvered the German armor and knocked out hundreds of German tanks. The Soviet tank force’s audacious tactics resulted in a disastrous defeat for the Germans, and the disorganized SS divisions withdrew, leaving 400 destroyed tanks behind, including between 70 and 100 Tigers and many Panthers. Those losses smashed the SS divisions’ fighting power, and as a result Hoth’s Fourth Panzer Army had no chance to achieve even a partial victory in the south.

While it makes a dramatic story, nearly all of this battle scenario is essentially myth. Careful study of the daily tank strength reports and combat records of II SS Panzer Corps–available on microfilm at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.–provides information that forces a historical reappraisal of the battle. These records show, first of all, that Hausser’s corps began with far fewer tanks than previously believed and, more important, that they suffered only moderate losses on July 12, 1943. As those reports were intended to allow the corps commander to assess the combat strength of his divisions, they can be considered reasonably accurate. Considering that information, it seems that the Germans may have been near a limited success on the southern flank of the salient.

The number of SS tanks actually involved in the battle has been variously reported as high as 700 by some authorities, while others have estimated between 300 to 600. Even before the Battle of Kursk began, however, the II SS Panzer Corps never had 500 tanks, much less 700. On July 4, the day before Operation Citadel was launched, Hausser’s three divisions possessed a total of 327 tanks between them, plus a number of command tanks. By July 11, the II SS Panzer Corps had a total of 211 operational tanks– Totenkopf had 94 tanks, Leibstandarte had only 56 and Das Reich possessed just 61. Damaged tanks or tanks undergoing repairs are not listed. Only 15 Tiger tanks were still in action at Prochorovka, and there were no SS Panthers available. The battalions that were equipped with Panthers were still training in Germany in July 1943.

On July 13, the day after the Battle of Prochorovka, Fourth Panzer Army reports declared that the II SS Panzer Corps had 163 operational tanks, a net loss of only 48 tanks. Actual losses were somewhat heavier, the discrepancy due to the gain of repaired tanks returned to action. Closer study of the losses of each type of tank reveals that the corps lost about 70 tanks on July 12. In contrast, Soviet tank losses, long assumed to be moderate, were actually catastrophic. In 1984, a history of the Fifth Guards Tank Army written by Rotmistrov himself revealed that on July 13 the army lost 400 tanks to repairable damage. He gave no figure for tanks that were destroyed or not available for salvage. Evidence suggests that there were hundreds of additional Soviet tanks lost. Several German accounts mention that Hausser had to use chalk to mark and count the huge jumble of 93 knocked-out Soviet tanks in the Leibstandarte sector alone. Other Soviet sources say the tank strength of the army on July 13 was 150 to 200, a loss of about 650 tanks. Those losses brought a caustic rebuke from Josef Stalin. Subsequently, the depleted Fifth Guards Tank Army did not resume offensive action, and Rotmistrov ordered his remaining tanks to dig in among the infantry positions west of the town.

Another misconception about the battle is the image of all three SS divisions attacking shoulder to shoulder through the narrow lane between the Psel and the rail line west of Prochorovka. Only Leibstandarte was aligned directly west of the town, and it was the only division to attack the town itself. The II SS Panzer Corps zone of battle, contrary to the impression given in many accounts, was approximately nine miles wide, with Totenkopf on the left flank, Leibstandarte in the center and Das Reich on the right flank. Totenkopf ‘s armor was committed primarily to the Psel bridgehead and in defensive action against Soviet attacks on the Psel bridges. In fact, only Leibstandarte actually advanced into the corridor west of Prochorovka, and then only after it had thrown back initial Soviet attacks.

Early on July 12, Leibstandarte units reported a great deal of loud motor noise, which indicated massing Soviet armor. Soon after 5 a.m., hundreds of Soviet tanks, carrying infantry, rolled out of Prochorovka and its environs in groups of 40 to 50. Waves of T-34 and T-70 tanks advanced at high speed in a charge straight at the startled Germans. When machine-gun fire, armor-piercing shells and artillery fire struck the T-34s, the Soviet infantry jumped off and sought cover. Leaving their infantry behind, the T-34s rolled on. Those Soviet tanks that survived the initial clash with SS armor continued a linear advance and were destroyed by the Germans.

When the initial Soviet attack paused, Leibstandarte pushed its armor toward the town and collided with elements of Rotmistrov’s reserve armor. A Soviet attack by the 181st Tank Regiment was defeated by several SS Tigers, one of which, the 13th (heavy) Company of the 1st SS Panzer Regiment, was commanded by 2nd Lt . Michael Wittmann, the most successful tank commander of the war. Wittmann’s group was advancing in flank support of the German main attack when it was engaged by the Soviet tank regiment at long range. The Soviet charge, straight at the Tigers over open ground, was suicidal. The frontal armor of the Tiger was impervious to the 76mm guns of the T-34s at any great distance. The field was soon littered with burning T-34s and T-70s. None of the Tigers were lost, but the 181st Tank Regiment was annihilated. Late in the day, Rotmistrov committed his last reserves, elements of the V Mechanized Corps, which finally halted Leibstandarte .

Das Reich began its attack from several kilometers southwest of Prochorovka and was quickly engaged by aggressive battle groups of the II Tank Corps and II Guards Tank Corps. Fierce, somewhat confused fighting broke out all along the German division’s axis of advance. Battle groups of 20 to 40 Soviet tanks, supported by infantry and ground-attack planes, collided with Das Reich regimental spearheads. Rotmistrov continued to throw armor against the division, and combat raged throughout the day, with heavy losses of Soviet armor. Das Reich continued to push slowly eastward, advancing into the night while suffering relatively light tank losses.

Meanwhile, on the left flank, Soviet First Tank Army elements unsuccessfully tried to crush Totenkopf ‘s bridgehead. The SS division fought off the XXXI and X Tank Corps, supported by elements of the XXXIII Rifle Corps. In spite of the Soviet attacks, Totenkopf ‘s panzer group drove toward a road that ran from the village of Kartaschevka, southeast across the river and into Prochorovka.

The fighting, characterized by massive losses of Soviet armor, continued throughout July 12 without a decisive success by either side–contrary to the accounts given in many well-known studies of the Eastern Front, which state that the fighting ended on July 12 with a decisive German defeat. These authors describe the battlefield as littered with hundreds of destroyed German tanks and report that the Soviets overran the SS tank repair units. In fact, the fighting continued around Prochorovka for several more days. Das Reich continued to push slowly eastward in the area south of the town until July 16. That advance enabled the III Panzer Corps to link up with the SS division on July 14 and encircle several Soviet rifle divisions south of Prochorovka. Totenkopf eventually reached the Kartaschevka­Prochorovka road, and the division took several tactically important hills on the north edge of its perimeter as well. Those successes were not exploited, however, due to decisions made by Adolf Hitler.

After receiving the news of the Allied invasion of Sicily, as well as reports of impending Soviet attacks on the Mius River and at Izyum, Hitler decided to cancel Operation Citadel. Manstein argued that he should be allowed to finish off the two Soviet tank armies. He had unused reserves, consisting of three experienced panzer divisions of XXIV Panzer Corps, in position for quick commitment. That corps could have been used to attack the Fifth Guards Tank Army in its flank, to break out from the Psel bridgehead or to cross the Psel east of Prochorovka. All of the available Soviet armor in the south was committed and could not be withdrawn without causing a collapse of the Soviet defenses. Manstein correctly realized that he had the opportunity to destroy the Soviet operational and strategic armor in the Prochorovka area.

Hitler could not be persuaded to continue the attack, however. Instead, he dispersed the divisions of the II SS Panzer Corps to deal with the anticipated Soviet diversionary attacks south of the Belgorod­Kharkov sector. On the night of July 17-18, the corps withdrew from its positions around Prochorovka. Thus, the battle for Prochorovka ended, not because of German tank losses (Hausser had over 200 operational tanks on July 17) but because Hitler lacked the will to continue the offensive. The SS panzer divisions were still full of fight; in fact, two of them continued to fight effectively in southern Russia for the rest of the summer.

Leibstandarte was ordered to Italy, but Das Reich and Totenkopf remained in the East. Those two divisions and the 3rd Panzer Division, which replaced Leibstandarte , were transferred to the Sixth Army area, where they conducted a counterattack from July 31 to August 2 that eliminated a strong Soviet bridgehead at the Mius River. Without pause, the three divisions were then transferred to the Bogodukhov sector in early August 1943. Under the command of the III Panzer Corps, they were joined by another unit, the Fifth SS Panzergrenadier Division Wiking . During three weeks of constant combat, the four divisions played a major role in stopping the main Soviet post-Kursk counteroffensive, Operation Rumyantsev. They fought Rotmistrov’s Fifth Guards Tank Army, rebuilt to 503 tanks strong, and major portions of the First Tank Army, now at 542 tanks.

By the end of the month, Rotmistrov had less than 100 tanks still running. Katukov had only 120 tanks still in action by the last week of August. While at no time did any of the German divisions have more than 55 tanks in operation, they repeatedly blunted the thrusts of the two Soviet tank armies, which were also reinforced by several rifle corps.

Totenkopf repeatedly cut off and defeated all of the First Tank Army’s thrusts toward the Kharkov­Poltava rail line. Das Reich threw back two Soviet tank corps south of Bogodukhov and blunted Rotmistrov’s last major attack west of Kharkov, and the III Panzer Corps halted Operation Rumyantsev.

After Kharkov itself fell, however, the German front gradually collapsed. The Soviets regrouped, committed additional strong reserves and renewed their attack toward the strategically important Dnepr River. Army Group South was subsequently forced to abandon much of southern Ukraine in a race for the safety of the Dnepr. Despite the remarkable efforts of the German army and Waffen SS panzer divisions during July and August, the Germans were too weak to hold the Kharkov­Belgorod­Poltava sector after their summer losses.

It is apparent from their operations during the late summer that the SS panzer divisions were not destroyed at Prochorovka. This reassessment of the battle provides food for thought regarding possible German successes if Manstein’s panzer reserves had been utilized as he had intended.

To what extent the course of events in Russia would have been changed is, of course, unknown, but it is interesting to speculate. If Army Group South’s panzer reserve had been used to encircle and destroy the Fifth Guards Tank Army and the First Tank Army, the outcome of the war in Russia might have been significantly different. Although it was beyond the German army’s capabilities to force a military end to the war by the summer of 1943, a limited victory in the south could have resulted in a delay of Soviet strategic operations for months or perhaps longer. It is doubtful, however, that this pause would have lasted long enough for the Germans to transfer enough forces to the West to defeat the June 6, 1944, D-Day invasion.

But one fact is beyond any question, regardless of the number of tanks possessed by the Germans or Soviets or what might have been possible. Due to Hausser’s panzer corps’ failure to take Prochorovka on July 12 and the subsequent misuse of German panzer reserves, the momentum of the Fourth Panzer Army was slowed dramatically. When Hitler abandoned Operation Citadel on July 13, the Germans’ last opportunity to influence events on a strategic level in the East was lost.

It is interesting that the information regarding German tank losses at Prochorovka has not been made available before now. Due to the lack of crucial primary-source information–especially the records of the II SS Panzer Corps on the Eastern Front–there had been no evidence to correct the erroneous accounts and impressions given in previous studies of the Eastern Front.

Waffen SS formations’ records of their Eastern Front operations were not declassified until 1978­1981. By that time, many of the major works about the Eastern Front had already been published. Later authors accepted the accounts of the battle as given in the earlier books and failed to conduct additional research. As a result, one of the best known of all Eastern Front battles has never been understood properly. Prochorovka was believed to have been a significant German defeat but was actually a stunning reversal for the Soviets because they suffered enormous tank losses.

As Manstein suggested, Prochorovka may truly have been a lost German victory, thanks to decisions made by Hitler. It was fortunate for the Allied cause that the German dictator, a foremost proponent of the value of will, lost his own will to fight in southern Ukraine in July 1943. Had he allowed Manstein to continue the attack on the two Soviet tank armies in the Prochorovka area, Manstein might have achieved a victory even more damaging to the Soviets than the counterattack that had recaptured Kharkov in March 1943.

This article was written by George M. Nipe, Jr. and originally appeared in the February 1998 issue of World War II magazine. For more great articles subscribe to World War II magazine today!

Related stories

Portfolio: Images of War as Landscape

Whether they produced battlefield images of the dead or daguerreotype portraits of common soldiers, […]

Jerrie Mock: Record-Breaking American Female Pilot

In 1964 an Ohio woman took up the challenge that had led to Amelia Earhart’s disappearance.

Seminoles Taught American Soldiers a Thing or Two About Guerrilla Warfare

During the 1835–42 Second Seminole War and as Army scouts out West, these warriors from the South proved formidable.

During the War Years, Posters From the American Homefront Told You What to Do — And What Not to Do

If you needed some motivation during the war years, there was probably a poster for that.

• lol Badge Feed
• win Badge Feed
• trending Badge Feed

Browse links

• © 2024 BuzzFeed, Inc
• Consent Preferences
• Accessibility Statement

39 Things People Would Buy If They Secretly Won The Lottery And Never Told Anyone

It's the Elkay drinking fountain for me.

BuzzFeed Staff

There's a meme on X where people are sharing what they'd buy if they won the lottery and kept it a secret.

Here are some of my favorites...

if i won the lottery i wouldn’t tell anyone but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/o1uvBRCjfL — paisley. ⊹ (@danstille) February 19, 2024

if I won the lottery I wouldn’t tell anyone, but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/jC05hNV5rg — 🅱️en (@NoCloutBen) December 28, 2023

If I won the lottery, I wouldn’t tell anyone… but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/7qfopl58az — Javi Villarreal 🇺🇸 (@JaviVillarreal) March 20, 2024

If I won the lottery I wouldn’t tell anyone…but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/77kueclva9 — Aaron Hibell (@aaronhibell) March 2, 2024

if i won the lottery i wouldn’t tell anyone but there would be signs. pic.twitter.com/K0IejaMPPX — kate 💒🪩🫧 (@l0verontour) March 7, 2024

If I won the lottery I wouldn’t tell anyone…but there would be signs… pic.twitter.com/4FG1hK0Q7N — bojacka horsegirl (@cirino_lixao) February 27, 2024

if i won the lottery i wouldn’t tell anyone but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/UqpIoscxfW — princess meep (@ohfuckingod) February 29, 2024

if i won the lottery i wouldn't tell anyone but there would be signs. pic.twitter.com/Dzk6WrPauK — Jackson Baby (@Alldogsaredead) March 7, 2024

if i won the lottery i wouldn’t tell anyone but there would be signs… pic.twitter.com/9KVhnrThe0 — liv (@livlaughluvvvv) March 7, 2024

if I won the lottery I wouldn't tell anyone... but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/W9eJziNJkH — Sara Friedman (@sarafriedmannn) March 8, 2024

If I won the lottery, I wouldn't tell anyone. But there would be signs pic.twitter.com/q5yvZnIYEN — cakejumper 🍰🦈🦊 (@Itscakejumper) March 9, 2024

If I won the lottery, I wouldn’t tell anyone — but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/UV8sQvU3ca — Sadia (@sadianowshin_) March 9, 2024

If I won the lottery I wouldn’t tell anyone, but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/26ttfodagI — 📚💻 🦇 ℑ𝔞𝔠𝔱𝔦𝔣𝔞𝔦𝔩 🦇💻📚 (@TactiFail) March 10, 2024

If I won the lottery, I wouldn’t tell anyone…..but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/oKv6IThvef — Whole.lotta.quotes (@lotta_quotes6) March 11, 2024

If I won the lottery, I wouldn't tell anyone, but there would definitely be signs... pic.twitter.com/2qh9qmXcjF — Cuppy 🦇✨️ (@und3adcupcak3) March 11, 2024

If I won the lottery I wouldn’t tell anyone but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/jajdKwycJy — Joke 🤌 (@Joke_N_E) March 12, 2024

If I won the lottery I wouldn't tell anyone but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/P8TXSor75l — Stu 🌈🩸 (@toydose) March 12, 2024

if I won the lottery I wouldn’t tell anyone. but there would be signs… pic.twitter.com/31er9w0FjK — madison (@radisontomes) March 12, 2024

if I won the lottery I wouldn’t tell anyone but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/LGaK8QrYKT — based bimbo (@Cadavxrous) March 13, 2024

If I won the lottery I wouldn’t tell anyone, but there would be signs.. pic.twitter.com/o3XTQmreo9 — TOPGAP (@PickATopTier) March 16, 2024

If i won the lottery i wouldn't tell anyone, but there would be signs... pic.twitter.com/SNIfhujZ1w — Diet_Letice (@DietLetice) March 16, 2024

if i won the lottery i wouldn't tell anyone but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/eHMchMVWxS — 🌼catherine!🌼 (@HulgusVevo) March 17, 2024

If I won the lottery I wouldn't tell anyone but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/KNTK0an2UC — Boatercycle🇵🇸 (@TheBoatercycle) March 18, 2024

if i won the lottery i wouldn’t tell anyone… but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/iyjn8B4laA — sascha (@riotforfaye) March 20, 2024

If I won the lottery I wouldn't tell anyone but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/g3MO1OakVe — Johnny (@cookthompkins) March 22, 2024

I wouldn't tell anyone if I won the lottery but there would be signs... pic.twitter.com/CikPXYaWFV — Jordan Joshua Lewis (@Jordsettles) March 22, 2024

if i won the lottery i wouldn't tell anyone but there would be signs https://t.co/m5YY2OYXAI — practicing sincerity | liv k (@PSsincerity) March 24, 2024

I wouldn’t tell anyone if I won the lottery, but there would be signs. pic.twitter.com/w8pStlI4hd — Old Curmudgeon Music Geek 🎶🎸🤓 (@klcheshire) March 26, 2024

if i won the lottery i wouldn’t tell anyone but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/IyLeFvi3Up — nicole (@nictothemarie) March 30, 2024

I wouldn't tell anyone if I'd won the lottery. But there would be signs. pic.twitter.com/0cvwopGSjh — 🎬 Pops! Now in 3D! 🎬 (@CarlB_ERVB) March 31, 2024

if i won the lottery i wouldn’t tell anyone but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/MAs8JNRTju — The Singularly Named Mel~🍀💙✨ (@gollygeemel) April 1, 2024

if i won the lottery i wouldn’t tell anyone but there would be signs https://t.co/07oEBv38B4 — Andrea🗿 (@AndreaV2k) April 1, 2024

if i won the lottery i wouldn't tell anyone, but there would be signs.... pic.twitter.com/8zrcsRVHY6 — | ace | free palestine | (@SchardsofGlass) April 4, 2024

If I won the lottery I wouldn’t tell anyone… but there would be signs. pic.twitter.com/Ah4GF0f0Db — Ryan Kelley (@RyanKelleyOnX) April 5, 2024

"If I won the lottery I wouldn't tell anyone, but there would be signs" pic.twitter.com/tXmVnhHIsW — Matt the Radar Technician (@disneymatt55) April 7, 2024

If I won the lottery I wouldn't tell anyone but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/5IT7lsePMq — Danny (@Middaughsome) April 8, 2024

39. And lastly...

if i won the lottery i wouldn’t tell anyone but there would be signs pic.twitter.com/VhUUtOVvpg — jacob. (@jtimsuggs) February 26, 2024

Share This Article

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Gambling Addiction — Research of the Question: Are Lottery Winners Happier

Research of The Question: Are Lottery Winners Happier

• Categories: Gambling Addiction Happiness

About this sample

Words: 1386 |

Published: Feb 9, 2022

Words: 1386 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

• Apouey, B., & Clark, A. E. (2014). Winning Big but Feeling no Better? The Effect of Lottery Prizes on Physical and Mental Health. Health Economics, 24(5), 516–538. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hec.3035
• Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. (2010). Lottery Gambling: A Review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(1), 15–33. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10899-010-9194-0
• Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of personality and social psychology, 36(8), 917. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-01001-001
• Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319(5870), 1687-1688. Retrieved from https://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5870/1687.long
• Dunn, E. W., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2011). If money doesn't make you happy, then you probably aren't spending it right. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 115-125. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.02.002
• Gardner, J., & Oswald, A. (2001). Does money buy happiness? A longitudinal study using data on windfalls. Manuscript submitted for publication. Retrieved from https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/ajoswald/marchwindfallsgo.pdf
• Gardner, J., & Oswald, A. J. (2007). Money and mental wellbeing: A longitudinal study of medium-sized lottery wins. Journal of health economics, 26(1), 49-60. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629606000853
• Lindqvist, E., Östling, R., & Cesarini, D. (2018). Long-run Effects of Lottery Wealth on Psychological Well-being. NBER Working Paper 24667. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w24667
• Kuhn, P., Kooreman, P., Soetevent, A., & Kapteyn, A. (2011). The Effects of Lottery Prizes on Winners and Their Neighbors: Evidence from the Dutch Postcode Lottery. AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 101(5). Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.5.2226
• Powdthavee, N. (2010). How much does money really matter? Estimating the causal effects of income on happiness. Empirical Economics, 39(1), 77–92. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00181-009-0295-5

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1398 words

2 pages / 1162 words

1 pages / 406 words

3 pages / 1162 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Gambling Addiction

Addiction is a habit that has fallen out of hand. An individual will develop it slowly and after some time and repetition, the practice becomes a dependency. One cannot do without that particular practice even for a few days. It [...]

Playing, or gambling as one colloquially calls it, is probably as old as mankind itself. The beginning of gambling is dated by the researchers on approximately 3000 before Christ. In places where the Mesopotamia lived dices of [...]

A compulsive gambler will often reply yes to most of these questions, but many simply wont admit the fact that they have a problem. Admitting that their behaviour is compulsive is like accepting defeat. Gamblers spend most of [...]

Have you ever wish you can win millions of dollars from a lottery purchase. The chances of winning the lottery is so slim that it’s more likely you get strike by the lighting compared to winning lottery jackpot. It’s a no [...]

The lottery is considered one of the most sought after things in our modern day society. With its affordable prices for tickets and eye catching advertisements, it manages to promise favorable fortune for the lucky individual [...]

In chapter nine of The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and in Business by Charles Duhigg, Duhigg introduces Angie Bachmann a stay at home mom that finds herself an intensely boring day after day. Over time, Bachmann [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Please enter at least 3 characters

Photo Credit: Russian soldiers advance beneath the fire support of one of their tanks. The Russians had planned a counterattack and made it fearsome.

The Kursk Battle: The Eastern Front’s Turning Point

In an effort to change their fortunes in Russia, the Germans threw much of their best into the Battle of Kursk. But the Russians were waiting.

This article appears in: February 2003

By Jonas Goldstein

When they invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Germans were confident of a swift victory over the Russian untermenschen (subhumans). But as Napoleon before them had discovered, the vastness of Russia and the fighting skills of her people, especially under able leadership, are formidable challenges. In 1941, the original thrust of the Nazis was repelled before Moscow. In 1942 they were defeated at Stalingrad , and in the summer of 1943 there was the Battle of Kursk , an even more decisive setback for Hitler than his disaster on the Volga. This latter engagement has been termed history’s greatest tank battle. Its dimensions stagger the imagination, and the tactics employed challenge the military mind. It has always been a temptation to designate Stalingrad, not the Kursk battle, as the turning point of World War II. But although this battle demonstrated a remarkable improvement in the operational skills of Soviet soldiers and weapons, it was only a part of a widespread campaign. At the same time, it must be realized that the German Army, though reduced in its military capabilities after its defeat on the Volga, was still a formidable force. This was demonstrated in mid-March 1943 when the Nazis recaptured the vital city of Kharkov.

As the front stabilized during spring 1943, the Soviet General Staff tried to determine the Germans’ next move. The consensus was that the Kursk salient was the only place where the enemy was in position to launch an attack with any prospect of success. The concentration of panzer forces and infantry divisions around Orel and Kharkov hinted that these were the staging areas for the coming attack. The Soviets presumed that two heavy armored incursions north and south of the neck of the salient would attempt to converge and encircle the Soviet forces.

As Marshal Georgiy K. Zhukov later wrote: “[The Germans] were in a position … to mount a major offensive operation in the Kursk Salient Sector with the objective of trying to smash [Soviet] troops of the Central and Voronezh Fronts. This would change the general strategic situation in favor of the Germans, [because] the overall front line would contract considerably, thus increasing the operational density of German defense formations.”

Zhukov continued: “Realizing that their Armed Forces had lost their erstwhile superiority over the Red Army, the Nazi military and political leadership undertook a [thoroughgoing] series of measures to muster for the Soviet-German front everything they possibly could. Thus, large contingents of picked troops were moved in from the west. The war industry worked round the clock to manufacture more of the new ‘Tiger’ and ‘Panther’ tanks and heavy self-propelled ‘Ferdinand’ guns and also the Focke-Wulf-190A and Heinkel-129 aircraft. Considerable replenishments of personnel and materiel were provided.”

From the German side, Field Marshal Erich von Manstein wrote: “An attempt had to be made to strike the enemy a blow of limited scope before he could recover from his losses in the winter campaign and resuscitate his beaten forces. A suitable target was presented by the Soviet salient that protruded far into our own front line around the city of Kursk. The Russians facing the boundary between Central and Southern Army Groups had been able to retain this when the muddy season set in, and it now formed a jumping-off position for any attacks they might be contemplating against the flanks of the two German army groups. The appreciable Soviet forces inside the salient would be cut off if our attack were successful, and provided that we launched it early enough, we could hope to catch them in a state of unpreparedness.”

Having surmised the Nazis’ intentions, the next step for the Russians was to decide how to respond. Josef Stalin instinctively sought an offensive solution: an attack launched preemptively against German positions, followed by hot pursuit. Zhukov and the General Staff rejected this, and on April 8 the former suggested a plan that was adopted as Soviet strategy for 1943: Soviet forces would meet the German offensive against Kursk with deep defensive lines aimed at debilitating the enemy’s panzer forces, and then respond with a strong counteroffensive intended to thoroughly defeat the enemy. The Russians looked upon the Kursk salient as their springboard for the reconquest of Orel and Briansk to the northwest and the Ukraine to the southwest. Accordingly, there were enormous Russian troop concentrations. Ever since March they had been fortifying the salient with thousands of miles of trenches, thousands of gun emplacements, and defenses along its north, west, and south sides stretching as deeply as 65 miles.

Zhukov insisted that the Kursk battle be placed under the full control of the Supreme Headquarters; it was done. This was only part of the preparations. Zhukov wrote in his Memoirs: “After repeated discussions in mid-May 1943, Stalin firmly decided to meet the German offensive with fire from all types of depth-echeloned defenses and with powerful air attacks and counterblows from operational and strategic reserves to overcome the enemy completely, after wearing him down by a powerful counter-offensive in the Belgorod-Kharkov and Orel directions, and to subsequently undertake deep thrusting offensive action in all the key directions.”

Zhukov, who remained the chief architect of the campaign, was born in 1896, the son of a village cobbler. He was conscripted into the Imperial Russian cavalry in 1915 and joined the Red Army when it was created in 1918. During the 1920s and 1930s he pursued a conventional military career, rising in prominence as a combat commander. He had previously been instrumental in the planning of the Soviet victories before Moscow in 1941 and at Stalingrad in 1942.

By March 1943 Hitler was determined, for both political and economic reasons, to hold a front running from the Gulf of Finland down to the Sea of Azov, and to inflict a resounding defeat on the Russians at Kursk, thereby trapping vast numbers of the enemy and changing the strategic situation in the Germans’ favor. A victory here might even facilitate a new offensive against Moscow. He felt that the operation would succeed, provided it was undertaken soon.

Indeed, on the northern shoulder of the region, General Walter Model’s Ninth Army was poised to strike, but its operations were delayed due to the unfavorable condition of the terrain and the slowness with which the German divisions were being replenished. In these circumstances General Model felt that the operation could not succeed without strong reinforcements by heavy modern tanks, superior to anything the Russians possessed. Based on Model’s reservations, the attack was postponed until the middle of June, while a large number of new Tiger and Panther tanks and Ferdinand mobile guns were rushed from armament works in Germany straight to the front. Model had been commissioned into the German infantry in 1910, and served on the General Staff toward the end of World War I. An ardent Nazi, he served in Poland in 1939 and France in 1940 before taking over command of a panzer corps in Russia.

Field Marshal von Manstein felt that a delay until the start of summer would be disastrous, reiterating, “The whole idea had been to attack before the enemy had replenished his forces and got over the reverses of the winter. At the same time it was certain that the longer we took to launch the operation, the greater must be the threat to those of Southern Army Group’s armies in the Donetz-Mius salient…. On 5th July the German armies were finally able to attack. Though every deception and camouflage measure had been taken, we could no longer expect to catch the enemy unawares after a delay of that length.”

The main assault was delivered on the southern shoulder of the salient by von Manstein’s Army Group South. During World War I, von Manstein had fought at Verdun and the Somme. An experienced officer, he served in Poland and the West during 1939 and 1940. He had then enjoyed outstanding success on the Eastern Front and was promoted to field marshal in 1942. His forces were instrumental in the recapture of Kharkov after the fall of Stalingrad.

Colonel General Hermann Hoth’s Fourth Panzer Army in Army Group South consisted not only of the heavily equipped II SS Corps of three divisions, but also the XXXXVIII Panzer Corps, both of which were considerable threats to the Russians. But there were further delays by the Germans, caused by, among other things, Hitler’s fear that Italy was on the point of dropping out of the war. When he finally was satisfied that Mussolini was not giving up, he decided to proceed with his original plan regarding Kursk. A victory here, he declared, would fire the imagination of the world. As spring gave way to summer, all the Nazi units had ample opportunity to make up their equipment shortages and organize effectively.

Meanwhile, the Russians under Zhukov and Marshal Aleksandr M. Vasilevsky had not squandered their time. Nothing suited them better than having the Germans attack them at Kursk, where they were strongest. Soviet air and ground reconnaissance observed every detail of the German preparations. On the northern half of the Kursk bulge, Army General Konstantin K. Rokossovsky’s Central Front—consisting of Lt. Gen. A.G. Rodin’s 2nd Tank Army, Lt. Gen. N.P. Pukhov’s 13th Army, and Lt. Gen. I.V. Galanin’s 70th Army—was set to meet the main thrust of Model’s Ninth Army.

In the south, the young Army General Nickolay F. Vatutin, with Nikita S. Khrushchev as his political commissar, commanded the Voronezh Front waiting for the main German assault. However, the Russians did not rely upon this force alone to thwart a breakthrough. It was backed up by Marshal Ivan S. Konev’s Steppe Front, which numbered 449,133 men. Konev was an experienced officer who had been conscripted into the Imperial Army in 1916 and after the Russian Revolution became a political commissar. He rose to a position of power as a colleague and sometime rival of Marshal Zhukov.

With these three segments, Soviet superiority in the Kursk region was 3:1 in manpower and 1.5:1 in armor. While outnumbered, the German force was still powerful. It had 2,000 tanks in the vicinity of the salient, more than half of them in the southern sector commanded by General Hoth, and nearly 2,000 planes. With such heavy German concentrations, Hitler looked forward to the battle with great confidence. He was sure that the northern and southern striking forces would break through and close the ring east of Kursk.

After the delays imposed by armament and politics, the German attack—called Operation Citadel—was scheduled for the morning of July 5, 1943. Through defectors and reconnaissance reports, the Soviet commanders were able to predict this attack to the minute. In fact, a half-hour before the German artillery was scheduled to begin firing, the Russians launched their own barrage against every area where the attackers were likely to assemble.

A Desperate Hitler Needed His “Kursk Victory” More Than Ever

Contrary to Nazi expectations, their forces met with devastating resistance, even though their troops exerted themselves to the utmost. Their attacks continued to penetrate into the deep Russian defenses, but they suffered severe losses, and on July 7 the Russians threw in increasingly heavy tank forces. Even so, Hitler ordered the offensive to continue. On July 10, the Western Allies landed in Sicily, and he needed his “Kursk victory” more than ever.

In reality, after the Nazis’ initial tactical successes, the Kursk battle had come to a standstill. It reached its critical point on July 11 and 12, when Hoth, in charge of the southern German thrust, turned his panzer spearhead northeast to envelop the Soviet 1st Tank Army. After initial German success, the Russians counterattacked. Over 1,200 tanks on both sides were engaged in this struggle. The battlefield in the Prokhorovka area was compressed into a space of roughly three square miles. From the moment the leading elements of Soviet armor crashed through the Germans’ first echelon, the commanders on both sides lost all control of their formations, and the battle became a confused free-for-all in which every tank fought individually amid a packed mass of armor. At practically point-blank range, the Tigers lost the advantages of armor and armament they enjoyed over the Soviet T-34s at longer range.

By the end of July 12, the area was a graveyard of burned-out Soviet and German tanks. While Hoth hoped to continue the attack east of Belgorod, Hitler at this time ordered von Manstein to begin withdrawing the II SS Panzer Corps from battle so that it could be moved west to deal with the deteriorating situation in Sicily. Von Manstein complied, and all German hopes for a renewed offensive, however unrealistic they may have been, evaporated.

Simultaneously on July 12 the Russian command struck toward Orel, in the rear of the German Ninth Army at the northern side of the salient. Then on July 13 Hitler reluctantly ordered Operation Citadel discontinued. This decision was further prompted by the Italians’ failure to defend Sicily as noted previously, and the possibility of having to send German reinforcements to Italy. Von Manstein wrote: “On July 13, when the battle was at its climax and the issue apparently at hand, the commanders of the two army groups concerned were summoned to Hitler. He opened the conference by announcing that the Western Allies had landed in Sicily that day and that the situation there had taken an extremely serious turn…. Since the next step might well be a landing in the Balkans or lower Italy, it was necessary to form new armies in Italy and the western Balkans. These forces must be found from the Eastern Front, so Operation Citadel would have to be discontinued.”

To this time, the Germans had no more than dented the Kursk salient by some 10 miles along a front of about 12 miles in the north, and by some 30 miles along a 30-mile front in the south. Approximately a hundred miles still separated the two German forces when the battle came to a standstill. Nearly the entire German panzer force had been destroyed.

Thus the initiative fell to the Red Army. Despite heavy losses, the Russian command was able to launch its summer offensive along a very broad front with superior forces. Von Manstein concluded: “And so the last German offensive in the east ended in a fiasco, even though the enemy opposite the two attacking armies of Southern Army Group had suffered four times their losses in prisoners, dead and wounded.” This remained his assessment of the relative losses involved.

On July 12, the Russian offensive against the northern flank and the Orel salient began. It penetrated 30 miles in three days, while a second advance, which was more direct, drove to within 15 miles of the city. However, four of the panzer divisions that Field Marshal Kluge had disengaged came up just in time to stop the Russians’ northern wing from establishing itself astride the railway from Orel to Briansk. Then the Russian offensive slowed, although superior numbers still forced the Germans back. It was a costly effort, but was helped by Rokossovsky’s forces changing over to the offensive on the southern flank of the Kursk salient.

The Germans were finally squeezed out of Orel on August 5. Marshal Zhukov wrote: “The counter-offensive in the Kursk Sector had been planned well before the enemy attack. According to the plan endorsed by GHQ in May, we contemplated a counter-offensive in the Orel direction coded ‘Kutuzov.’ Its objective was to strike at the enemy’s Orel [position], grouping three converging blows using the forces of the Central and Bryansk Fronts and the left flank of the Western Front.” Orel had not only been one of the most formidable bastions of the German front since 1941, but while in Nazi hands, it was a threat to Moscow.

Meanwhile, General Nickolay Vatutin’s troops had followed up the Germans’ withdrawal from the breach on the southern side of the Kursk salient to the original line. On August 4, Vatutin launched an attack and captured Belgorod the next day. Exploiting the enemy’s exhaustion, he drove an additional eight miles the next week, wheeling toward the rear of Kharkov. This maneuver opened up the prospect of dislocating the Germans’ entire southern front.

Marshal Zhukov gets the last word: “The battle fought at Kursk, Orel and Belgorod was a cardinal engagement of the Great Patriotic War and World War II generally. This battle resulted not only in the annihilation of the enemy’s strongest, handpicked groupings. It shattered the faith of the German people and Hitler’s allies in the Nazi leadership, in Germany’s ability to stand up to the ever increasing might of the Soviet Union.”

Back to the issue this appears in

Join The Conversation

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Share This Article

• via= " class="share-btn twitter">

Related Articles

The 1st Commando Brigade’s Invasion of Germany

Mission to Madagascar: British Assault on Diego Suarez Port

MIS-X’s Shadowy Secrets: Aiding Allied POW Escapes

European Theater

Roads to Bastogne

From around the network.

The Battle of Waynesboro: Jubal Early’s Last Stand

Latest Posts

Military History Book Reviews for Fall 2023

Uncle Sam’s Aircraft Manufacturing Muscle Ensured Victory

Military History

Castillon: Last Battle of the Hundred Years’ War

Real History Online

Results of the Battle of Kursk – July- August 1943

Completion of a fundamental change in the course of the war

The victory in the Battle of Stalingrad determined the transition of the Red Army from defense to a strategic offensive. In winter – spring 1943, the Red Army developed success, breaking the blockade of Leningrad, launching an offensive in the North Caucasus and in the upper reaches of the Don. However, the Germans managed to carry out a successful counterattack and again capture Kharkov in March 1943. After the Battle of Kursk, the strategic initiative firmly passed into the hands of the Soviet command. Left-bank of Ukraine and the city ​​of Kiev was liberated. This period of the war was called a critical turning point.

The victory at the Kursk Bulge and the subsequent strategic offensive according to the plan for the summer-autumn campaign of 1943 marked the end of the turning point in the course of the Great Patriotic War and, as a consequence, in the Second World War. After the end of the battle on the Kursk Bulge, the German command lost the ability to conduct strategic offensive operations.

Zhukov G.K. noted:

“Irritated by failures and extremely heavy losses, Hitler, as he always did in such cases, shifted all the blame for the failure of the offensive operation Citadel onto the heads of his field marshals and generals. He removed them from their posts, replacing, in his opinion, more capable ones. Hitler did not understand that the failure of a major strategic operation depends not only on the commanders, but is mainly determined by a large sum of military-strategic, political, moral and material factors.”

The opinion of the allies of the USSR on the anti-Hitler coalition

The Committee of the Chiefs of Staff of the United States in August 1943 prepared an analytical document in which it assessed the role of the USSR in the war. “Russia occupies a dominant position in the Second World War,” the report noted, “and is a decisive factor in the forthcoming defeat of the Axis countries in Europe. While in Sicily two German divisions are confronted by the troops of Great Britain and the United States, the Russian front is chaining about 200 German divisions. When the allies open a second front on the continent, it will undoubtedly be secondary in comparison with the Russian front, the Russian will continue to play a decisive role”. Further, it was concluded that:

“The main military operations will be conducted in Russia. Without Russia’s participation in the war in Europe, it is impossible to defeat the Axis countries, and the position of the United Nations will turn out to be dangerous “

President Roosevelt was aware of the danger of further postponement of the second front. He told his son on the eve of the Tehran conference:

“If things in Russia continue as they do now, then it is possible that next spring there will be no need for a second front!”

– E. Roosevelt. Through His Eyes. – M., 1947.– S. 161.

Confessions of German generals

Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, who designed and carried out Operation Citadel, later wrote:

She was the last attempt to keep our initiative in the East. With her failure, tantamount to failure, the initiative finally passed to the Soviet side. Therefore, Operation Citadel is a decisive turning point in the war on the Eastern Front.

– Manstein E. Lost Victories / Per. with him. – M., 1957.– S. 423.

According to Guderian,

As a result of the failure of the Citadel offensive, we suffered a decisive defeat. The armored troops, replenished with such great difficulty, were incapacitated for a long time due to heavy losses in people and equipment. Their timely restoration to conduct defensive operations on the Eastern Front, as well as to organize defense in the west in case of the landing, which the Allies threatened to land next spring, was called into question. Needless to say, the Russians were quick to use their success. And there were no more calm days on the Eastern Front. The initiative passed completely to the enemy.

– Guderian G. Memoirs of a Soldier. – Smolensk: Rusich, 1999

Assessment of Albert Speer, Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production:

The offensive began on July 5, but, despite the widespread use of the latest military equipment, we did not succeed in cutting off the Kursk salient and encircling Soviet troops. Excessive self-confidence once again let Hitler down, and after two weeks of fierce fighting, he was forced to admit the futility of his hopes. The unsuccessful outcome of the Battle of Kursk meant that henceforth the Soviet Union seized the strategic initiative even at a favorable time of the year for us.

– Speer A. Memories / [Per. with him. S. Fridlyand; I. Rozanova]. – 2nd ed., Rev. – M.: Zakharov, 2010.– 688 p.

Disruption of further plans of the German command

Operation Citadel was the first of the Wehrmacht’s planned operations for the summer and autumn of 1943, which made it possible to go deep into the rear of the Soviet troops and create a threat to Moscow. On March 22, Hitler gave the order to carry out Operation Hawk, but the prospects that were opening up, if successful, after two days forced to instruct GA South to develop a larger operation, code-named Panther.

The success of operations Citadel and Panther was supposed to be the signal for the start of the German offensive on Leningrad. The operation was originally codenamed Berenfang (Bear Hunt). The first stage was named “Parkplatz-I”, the second – “Parkplatz-II”. About the planned occupation of Sweden notes the American historian M. Kaydin:

“Much more was at stake than just the city of Kursk or the advancement of the terrain to the north, south and east, but something that would never be reflected in the diagrams and maps – a merciless reprisal against the Russians, and this was the essence of German plan: harass, grind, disperse, kill and capture… Later, if Operation Citadel proceeds as Hitler had hoped, a major new offensive on Moscow would follow. Later, he will put into practice his top secret plan “Arctic fox”, and the German armed forces with a lightning strike occupy Sweden. Later he… will strengthen the troops in Italy to repel the Allied invasion and throw them into the sea, for he knew that the time of this invasion was approaching. Send powerful reinforcements to the Atlantic Wall, perhaps sufficientto break the back of the invasion forces from England… It was not only the Russian fate, which had to be decided at Kursk, but the fate of the war itself “

– quoted by: Caidin. M. The Tigers Are Burning. New York: Hawthorn, 1974, p. 4, 5, 8.

The victory of the Red Army at Kursk and the troops of the anti-Hitler coalition in Sicily made the plans of the German command unrealizable.

The international significance of the victory in the Battle of Kursk

As a result of the defeat of significant Wehrmacht forces on the Soviet-German front, more favorable conditions were created for deploying the actions of the American-British troops in Italy, the beginning of the collapse of the fascist bloc was laid – the Mussolini regime collapsed, and Italy withdrew from the war on the side of Germany. Influenced by the victories of the Red Army, the scale of the resistance movement in the countries occupied by German troops increased, the prestige of the USSR as the leading force of the anti-Hitler coalition strengthened.

In the Battle of Kursk, Soviet soldiers showed courage, resilience and mass heroism. According to the IVI VA of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces:

More than 100 thousand people were awarded orders and medals, 231 people were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union, 132 formations and units received the rank of guards, 26 were awarded the honorary titles of Oryol, Belgorod, Kharkov and Karachevsky.

Supreme Commander-in-Chief I. V. Stalin, summing up the results of the summer-autumn campaign in a report on November 6, 1943, noted  :

“… the results and consequences of the victories of the Red Army went far beyond the boundaries of the Soviet-German front, changed the whole further course of the world war and acquired great international significance. The victory of the Allied countries over the common enemy approached, and the relations between the Allies, the military community of their armies, contrary to the expectations of the enemies, not only did not weaken, but, on the contrary, became stronger and stronger… the Allies subjected and continue to subject the important industrial centers of Germany to weaken the military power of the enemy… they regularly supply us with various weapons and raw materials… it can be said without exaggeration that with all this they greatly facilitated the successes of our summer campaign “

The geopolitical success of the 1943 summer / fall campaign

The victory in the Battle of Kursk made it possible to launch a broad offensive according to the plan of the summer-autumn campaign, while liberating a significant territory.

G.K. Zhukov notes: The battle in the region of Kursk, Orel and Belgorod is one of the greatest battles of the Great Patriotic War and World War II in general. Here, not only the best and most powerful groups of the Germans were defeated, but also the belief in the Nazi Nazi leadership and in Germany’s ability to withstand the ever-increasing power of the Soviet Union was irretrievably undermined in the German army and people.  

Recommended for you

Most Popular WW2 History

Sturmpanzer IV “Brummbar”

Minesweeper Alkett Minenräumer (Germany)

Battle at Oglendow – King Tigers Vs T-34/85’s

Operation “Vengeance” – Assassination of Admiral Yamamoto

PTRD-41 Soviet WW2 Anti Tank Rifle

Mühlviertel Rabbit Hunt

Comprehensive Review of ‘Stalingrad’: A Cinematic Triumph in WWII German Filmography

A Deep Dive into ‘Warsaw 44’: A Poignant Masterpiece of Polish WWII Cinema