>>17864123
Yeah, fair point, but honestly, I don’t think it would’ve been easy either. The Soviets had heavily fortified the area by 1943, and the Leningrad Front was reinforced with fresh divisions, artillery, and anti-air assets. The city had survived two brutal years of siege and was still holding. Any major assault would’ve meant urban warfare in a massive, industrialized city, something the Germans weren’t exactly eager to repeat after Stalingrad. Plus, the Soviets had interior lines of supply across Lake Ladoga and a functioning railway. They would've poured in reinforcements fast.

Also, even if they did take Leningrad, moving east from there toward cutting off Soviet forces or linking up with the Finns more deeply would’ve required serious manpower. The Germans were already stretched thin. If they’d pulled enough troops to do that from Army Group Center, they would’ve left the Kursk bulge dangerously exposed. That salient had to be addressed one way or another. It was a real threat to the German front line stability. Ignoring it could’ve let the Soviets launch their own offensive into the flank or rear of Army Group Center.

So yeah, I get your point. Leningrad might've made more sense than Kursk if it was easier. But in reality, both were bloody, risky operations, and shifting forces north probably would’ve just opened up a new crisis in the center.