![]() |
View Poll Results :Which Allied General/Field Marshall Outshone the Rest?? | |||
Field Marshal Bernard Law Viscount Montgomery (United Kingdom) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
5 | 13.16% |
General George Smith Patton (United States of America) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
14 | 36.84% |
Marshal of Soviet Union Georgii K. Zhukov (Soviet Union) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
9 | 23.68% |
Field Marshal Gustaf Mannerheim (Finland) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 5.26% |
General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower (United States of America) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
8 | 21.05% |
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
||||
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not one of those people who see Hitler as an idiot with no grasp of strategy. This is not true at all. However, he was wholly responsible for the 3 decisions that I listed and those decisions did have a major impact on Barbarossa in 1941. The biggest mistake the USSR made was one of naivety by Stalin when refusing to believe a German attack was imminent. I don't think you acknowledge that even a well prepared Red Army would still have been soundly beaten by the Wehrmacht because of Blitzkrieg tactics. I mean, the British, French, Dutch and Belgian armies were ready and prepared yet they were outfought, out-thought and out maneuvered by the Wehrmacht. Why would the response of the Red Army have been any different? |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Hi again fellas,
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________ I'm not one of those people who see Hitler as an idiot with no grasp of strategy. This is not true at all. However, he was wholly responsible for the 3 decisions that I listed and those decisions did have a major impact on Barbarossa in 1941. The biggest mistake the USSR made was one of naivety by Stalin when refusing to believe a German attack was imminent. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ Fully agree that those decisions by Hitler certainly didn't help Germanys cause, although the mistake by Stalin in refusing to believe the date of the attack, was only one of several big mistakes on Russias side. First mistake was ripping the heart out of the officer corps. Only Budenny and Voroshilov survived out of 5 Marshals. only 5 out of 80 members of the Military districts. 2 out of 15 army commanders. 28 out of 85 corps commanders. 186 out of 406 brigade commanders. And thousands of junior ranks executed. Don't think that was an ideal preparation to take on the best war machine in the world, was it? Or, put it the other way around, if it happened to the German army, how do you think they would have fared? A Manstein, or a Guderian etc might have karked it. Second mistake was Stalin interfering just as much as Hitler, at least Hitler made Corporal. [LOL] If commanders like Zhukov, Vasilevski, Konev, Rokkasovsky, etc, were in full command, instead of the imbecile Budunny and Voroshilov, and with no interference from Stalin, it might have been a little different. Third mistake was poor forward defensive positions. The Russians were spread dangerously thin along the whole front, and the Germans, having the advantage of when and where to attack, brought the full weight of the Panzers to bear. As i've said, Zhukov wanted positions further back so they could'nt be instantly overrun. And the Russian fighter forces were forward and caught on the ground, further back and at least they would have gotten into the air. [ the Russian bomber force largely survived, having airfields further back from the front line. ] And of course what you say about Stalin, having the dispositions of the forces fronting him, the date, and I think even the time of the attack, on his desk and ignoring it. So, expanding on Clark's thesis, if on one hand you think that the Germans would have done better without those mistakes, I think you have to be fair, and do the same for Russia. I have a feeling that if both the Germans and the Russians didn't make the mistakes we've quoted, that things would have ended up just about the same. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ I don't think you acknowledge that even a well prepared Red Army would still have been soundly beaten by the Wehrmacht because of Blitzkrieg tactics. I mean, the British, French, Dutch and Belgian armies were ready and prepared yet they were outfought, out-thought and out maneuvered by the Wehrmacht. Why would the response of the Red Army have been any different? __________________________________________________ _________________________________________ Yes, you're right. The Russians would probably have been beaten, [ but perhaps not so soundly ] like they were often beaten in the first 6 months of the war, but still come back and win the war. I think the biggest mistake the Germans made was on June 22nd '41. Invading Russia. After all, history wasn't on the Germans side. Charles the second invaded Russia, won battles...lost the war. Napoleon...ditto. THe Kaiser...ditto, and Hitler...ditto. See a trend here....invade Russia at your peril. At least Napoleon captured Moscow, which the Germans could'nt do, but it didn't do him much good. It's ironic isn't it? The Brits invented the tank, had two of the foremost exponents of tank warfare in Fuller and Liddel Heart, but it was commanders like Gurderian and Manteuffel who took their teachings on board, and the British and the French fought the war as though it was a continuation of the first world war, with many French divisions entrenched in the Maginot line, hardly firing a shot. Anyway, I think we may have got off godofthunders original thread a bit, but it's very interesting discussing these topics with you blokes. Cheers Ashes. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Germany definitely underestimated the Soviet Union, but they could have made a solid run at actually destroying most of what the USSR used to turn the tide. If Hitler had not redirected Army Group Center away from its original objective of taking Moscow, things would definitely have played out differently. Without Moscow, Leningrad would have been impossible to keep resupplied or supported, Stalingrad would not have been likely to succeed because the operation was heavily dependent upon resupply coming from the logistical heart of Russia - Moscow.
This is where Hitler did not understand his enemy but many of his generals did. Moscow was the the center hub of railways, roads and of critical industrial importance. Why did Leningrad hold out? Largely, because Moscow was there. Why was the Red Army successful at Stalingrad? Quick reinforcement and resupply via Moscow was an enormous part of why they won that battle. One point of clarification. World War II was not capture the flag. Taking the Moscow/Gorky area would not have ended it. The USSR still would have had Tankograd and other industrial sites from which they could have continued to fight. The sheer size of the Soviet Union is daunting and it may have taken several years for all mop up operations to be completed. But make no mistake about it, losing Moscow and Gorky in 41 would have crushed their upper hand in Industrial production, it would have greatly reduced the numerical advantage the Russians had as well. In a conflict with enormous distances, success was very heavily dependent on logistics. Failing to take out the logistical center-point of the USSR was a fatal mistake. The loss in their capability to quickly reinforce and resupply would have been HUGE. Even if German was only able to hold Moscow intermittently, it would have decapitated them in the long term. True that we're wandering off topic here. Things went that direction by trying to discuss Zhukov as a commander, so the relevant question is this: How much credit does Zhukov truly deserve for Soviet victory on the Eastern Front?? |
![]() |
|
|
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________
Germany definitely underestimated the Soviet Union, but they could have made a solid run at actually destroying most of what the USSR used to turn the tide. If Hitler had not redirected Army Group Center away from its original objective of taking Moscow, things would definitely have played out differently. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ I think Iv'e more or less answered that hypothetical with Doppleganger. And as you posted earlier, quote, 'The Germans failed to destroy the whole Red Army 1941 for simple enough reasons: There was too much to destroy and it was deployed over such a gigantic area. It was probably logistically impossible to completely destroy the Red Army in 1941.' Amen to that. __________________________________________________ _________________________________________ True that we're wandering off topic here. Things went that direction by trying to discuss Zhukov as a commander, so the relevant question is this: How much credit does Zhukov truly deserve for Soviet victory on the Eastern Front?? __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ An immense amount. The key man for helping defeat the Germans in Russia, and following on that, in Europe. |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
You still haven't provided any evidence as to why Zhukov was as great as you claim. Can you even convince me that he was better than Marshall Konev? |
![]() |