Zhukov, the best general in World War Two? Watch

Poll: Zhukov, the best general in World War Two?
Yes he was. (Please state why in the thread below) (0)
0%
No he was not (Please state why not in the thread below) (2)
40%
To some extent he was/was not (Please state why below) (2)
40%
Neutral. (1)
20%
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Anyone's opinions on Zhukov and whether he was the most sucessful general in World War Two? I understand that comparing individuals presents a challenge but I feel it can still be done.
0
reply
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#2
Anyone?
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Guderian for me. Before him, there was no real modern armoured combat. Without Guderian they would all have just been rolling around in dumb metal boxes.
1
reply
GMT
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
I don't know if he was the best. But he was the one that changed the course of the battle on the eastern front, if I'm not much mistaken, I think he lead the Russian in the battle of Stalingrad, an important turning point in WW2. It was the first major defeat of the Germans. Therefore he was certainly decisive, however, I wouldn't be able to say whether he was the best as I don't know much about all the generals.
0
reply
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Clip)
Guderian for me. Before him, there was no real modern armoured combat. Without Guderian they would all have just been rolling around in dumb metal boxes.
Interesting. I think the reason I might still say Zhukov is because of his consistency, I mean from Stalingrad until Berlin, Zhukov decimated his opponents.
0
reply
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by GMT)
I don't know if he was the best. But he was the one that changed the course of the battle on the eastern front, if I'm not much mistaken, I think he lead the Russian in the battle of Stalingrad, an important turning point in WW2. It was the first major defeat of the Germans. Therefore he was certainly decisive, however, I wouldn't be able to say whether he was the best as I don't know much about all the generals.
Stalingrad was important no doubt and has been cemented in our memories. However were not earlier battles important such as the Battle of Britain which it could be argued provided the catalyst for the German assault on Russian initially?
0
reply
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by Clip)
Guderian for me. Before him, there was no real modern armoured combat. Without Guderian they would all have just been rolling around in dumb metal boxes.
That Guediarian's tactics were revolutionary though cannot be denied. He achieved so much despite the constriction of the tactically challenged Hitler.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Rational Thinker)
That Guediarian's tactics were revolutionary though cannot be denied. He achieved so much despite the constriction of the tactically challenged Hitler.
Guerdiarian implemented huge changes that had been developed by the British.

Zhukov was a good Russian general, but I don't know how much if that was down the the enormous resources he had available to him. He had a very high casualty rate in his army.
0
reply
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Guerdiarian implemented huge changes that had been developed by the British.

Zhukov was a good Russian general, but I don't know how much if that was down the the enormous resources he had available to him. He had a very high casualty rate in his army.
Yes they had been developed by the British but it was still pioneering. As for Zhukov, I think the resources he had available to him were counterbalanced by the effects of Stalin's purges which had substantially weakened the Russian Army, so I think admirations can be held for Zhukov and he was certainly popular with the Russian people, which was why Stalin could not have him executed (Zhukov was more popular than Stalin and we all know what Stalin would have thought of that), as he so malevolently desired.
0
reply
GMT
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Rational Thinker)
Stalingrad was important no doubt and has been cemented in our memories. However were not earlier battles important such as the Battle of Britain which it could be argued provided the catalyst for the German assault on Russian initially?
The battle of britain was important, but I think that the influence of a general is greater on a "normal" battlefield than in an "air battle", as here the training and the will of the pilots has a greater influence.
In addittion, one can argue that losing the Battle of Britain, at least the "air battle" I'm aware of, wouldn't have supposed such a deathstroke to the UK, as the loss of stalingrad and the areas to the south of the Volga would have been to the Russians (They would have lost their oil... + possibly their most idustrialised areas with large amount of weapon "industries"). Whilst if the battle of britain would have been won by the Germans, they'd still have had to try and disembark on the British Mainlaind, which would have been extremely difficult and risky.
0
reply
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by GMT)
The battle of britain was important, but I think that the influence of a general is greater on a "normal" battlefield than in an "air battle", as here the training and the will of the pilots has a greater influence.
In addittion, one can argue that losing the Battle of Britain, at least the "air battle" I'm aware of, wouldn't have supposed such a deathstroke to the UK, as the loss of stalingrad and the areas to the south of the Volga would have been to the Russians (They would have lost their oil... + possibly their most idustrialised areas with large amount of weapon "industries"). Whilst if the battle of britain would have been won by the Germans, they'd still have had to try and disembark on the British Mainlaind, which would have been extremely difficult and risky.
Once they achieved air dominance they could have wreaked absolute havoc, which they did in the Blitz but to a lesser extent. Hitler said himself that invasion of Britain would follow Arial dominance. I think the German Army in Operation Barbarasso had become so ill prepared that attempting to reach the Volga in Winter was what lead to their demise instead they should have sheltered over the Winter or better yet invaded in Spring. The German Army in Russia was fearsome there is no doubt about that however, it is debatable as to whether a army like the Germans with its supply lines stretched could have delivered the deathstroke to Russia.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by Rational Thinker)
Once they achieved air dominance they could have wreaked absolute havoc, which they did in the Blitz but to a lesser extent. Hitler said himself that invasion of Britain would follow Arial dominance. I think the German Army in Operation Barbarasso had become so ill prepared that attempting to reach the Volga in Winter was what lead to their demise instead they should have sheltered over the Winter or better yet invaded in Spring. The German Army in Russia was fearsome there is no doubt about that however, it is debatable as to whether a army like the Germans with its supply lines stretched could have delivered the deathstroke to Russia.
Blitkreig worked in Western Europe. But it was the wrong type of warfare in the say. The geans thought they're success in the west would be replicated in the east.
0
reply
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Blitkreig worked in Western Europe. But it was the wrong type of warfare in the say. The geans thought they're success in the west would be replicated in the east.
I think it was more Hitler belief than the generals many if not most of whom had received formal military schooling and would have heard about Napoleon's problems in the East. The German military effort was heavily restrained by Nazi propaganda. An example being that many Ukrainian civilians at first viewed the Nazi's as saviours from Soviets (Famines in the Ukraine which were worsened if not caused by Stalin saw to this), however when SS troops started executing these civilians, sentiments of support quickly evaporated.
0
reply
castelo
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
I think Rokossovsky was a better Red Army Commander.

Overall, IMO the best military commander in WW2 was Von Manstein.
0
reply
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by castelo)
I think Rokossovsky was a better Red Army Commander.

Overall, IMO the best military commander in WW2 was Von Manstein.
Your evidence?
0
reply
castelo
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Rational Thinker)
Your evidence?
He was able to keep up against a much larger Soviet army from 1943 to 1944. He was the mastermind behind the 1940 German attack in Western Europe, as well.
0
reply
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by castelo)


He was able to keep up against a much larger Soviet army from 1943 to 1944. He was the mastermind behind the 1940 German attack in Western Europe, as well.
Personally I like Manstein's military style but I will play Devils Advocate and ask whether there is any evidence for him being able to turn battles around like Zhukov did?
0
reply
castelo
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Rational Thinker)
Personally I like Manstein's military style but I will play Devils Advocate and ask whether there is any evidence for him being able to turn battles around like Zhukov did?
I sugest you to read his Memories (quite a large book). But, trying to be more specific, He avoided the encirclement of the Wehrmacht South part (sorry, I don't know a better term in english) after the Stalingrad desaster. Without that, I think the Red Army would have son the war one year earlier.
0
reply
Rational Thinker
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by castelo)
I sugest you to read his Memories (quite a large book). But, trying to be more specific, He avoided the encirclement of the Wehrmacht South part (sorry, I don't know a better term in english) after the Stalingrad desaster. Without that, I think the Red Army would have son the war one year earlier.
I suppose the difference is that Manstein was only able to postpone defeat whereas Zhukov turned a potential defeat into a victory.
0
reply
castelo
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Rational Thinker)
I suppose the difference is that Manstein was only able to postpone defeat whereas Zhukov turned a potential defeat into a victory.
Don't forget the amount of human resources (meaning deaths) that Zhukov wasted in the path to victory. War is cruelty, but Zhukov was specially cruel.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA GCSE Physics Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (491)
31.1%
The paper was reasonable (608)
38.51%
Not feeling great about that exam... (258)
16.34%
It was TERRIBLE (222)
14.06%

Watched Threads

View All