About what is saying Santelises :
1 There is no proof that the Ukrainian deception greatly aided their offensive in the Charkiv region .
Even if it would so, it can never be proved ,
2 And as the MIW/ISW Santelises repeats things about Fortitude and Mincemeat that have been proved to be totally wrong .
If Hitler was convinced that Normandy was a diversionary attack, he would not have sent on 6 June Das Reich to Normandy,a part of Panzerlehr to the East and later Hohenstaufen and Frundsberg to Normandy .
Reinforcements were sent to Normandy, but not because the OKW was thinking that the real attack would occur in Normandy .
It is the same for Kerson and Charkiv .
3 The fact that Santelises repeats the Fortitude and Mincemeat myths, is a valid reason to believe that what he claims about Kherson and Charkiv is also a myth .
The real reason why an army is reinforcing point A and not point B is that the defenses of point A are weaker than those of point B and not that it believes that the enemy will attack A and not B .
1 There is no proof that the Ukrainian deception greatly aided their offensive in the Charkiv region .
Even if it would so, it can never be proved ,
2 And as the MIW/ISW Santelises repeats things about Fortitude and Mincemeat that have been proved to be totally wrong .
If Hitler was convinced that Normandy was a diversionary attack, he would not have sent on 6 June Das Reich to Normandy,a part of Panzerlehr to the East and later Hohenstaufen and Frundsberg to Normandy .
Reinforcements were sent to Normandy, but not because the OKW was thinking that the real attack would occur in Normandy .
It is the same for Kerson and Charkiv .
3 The fact that Santelises repeats the Fortitude and Mincemeat myths, is a valid reason to believe that what he claims about Kherson and Charkiv is also a myth .
The real reason why an army is reinforcing point A and not point B is that the defenses of point A are weaker than those of point B and not that it believes that the enemy will attack A and not B .