I have heard that the post-war writing was mostly done by the Germans. However one of the books I read about Kursk claims that the histography of the battle was favouring the Soviets and based on the official Soviet version. Is this the case?
(The book in question is the Swedish Slaget of Kursk by Anders Frankson and Niklas Zetterling)
How was the general view of the Eastern Front? In neutral countries/not ones directly involved in the conflict? In the other Allied nations? How has it changed?
(Apologies for bad English)
'Slaget of Kursk' doesn't appear to be available in English, or at least not in a place I could find an English preview, so I'm not familiar with their work or able to offer specific response, but more generally, certainly, much of the post-war historiography was heavily influenced by the Germans, which I have expanded on in the past here. The one thing I would reiterate which I touch on there is that while certainly there was influence, it wasn't total, but even for those who were pushing back against that influence in the period, the paucity of Soviet sources was a major issue, as the only ones available were, for the most part, what the Soviets wanted to be available, while the archives as a whole remained very much closed off for most of the Cold War.