"Best WWII Soviet General?" Topic

Which Soviet general do you feel was the best?

Zhukov

Zhukov.

Rokossovsky. This was the Germans' opinion as well. Since he was 1/2 Polish he could only get so much of the credit from his own side.

Rokossovsky

Chuikov.

Winter. (well, someone had to say it)

Rokossovsky

Vatutin

Zhukov. Far from perfect, he seems to have been inspirational (I suspect the real word I'm looking for is 'terrifying') and the man Stalin was most prepared to rely on (again, that is hardly a ringing recommendation, but in hard times requiring hard men, he was about as tough as they came, while being able to listen to the commanders on the ground and adjust plans in accordance with what they said.

Rokossovsky and Vatutin were also excellent, but I doubt that they could have shone without the groundwork that was laid by Zhukov.

I would back Zhukov. Vatutin had his strengths, but Manstein gave him a hard time at Kharkov.

If you all know what's good for you, you'll say Stalin-- that is, if you're being realistic.

Winter

Chuikov

Rokossovsky.

Chuikov

Otto has a good point there, but if you asked the troops while no-one else was listening, Zhukov had the reputation of being a 'soldier's general' – the one who had their back. Of course that's relative to the context of the Soviet Union, not western armies ;)

Zhukov. He beat the Japanese and then he beat the Germans. He got roughed up sometimes but never flat out defeated.

Hitler by far.

Vasilevsky – most responsible for enveloping 6th army at Stalingrad.

For all its worth, Zhukov seemed to be well liked by the men that served under him.

I imagine a lot of "hard times now means we get to survive the war" was at stake but with a bit of modification his heavy-handed aggressive approach wouldn't have been that out of place in the German or US militaries.

My most recent readings have significantly reduced my impression of Zhukov. He was bigger than life, no doubt about it. But I'm not so sure that he deserves the pedestal he seems to stand upon (in western writings).

The notion that he was well liked … I'm not so sure. He is well liked by Russian history. The Russians are a bit of an anomaly to American (or most western) sensibilities. They seem to truly like their terrible, terrifying despots. Zhukov had a reputation for being VERY hard on the soldiers under his commands. And they knew it. And it is generally not popular among soldiers to have their lives thrown away. Not even among Russians. Yet after the fact, so long as he was/is presented as a victorious hero, one who out-fought, and out-smarted the enemy, all was/is forgiven.

I'm not sure he deserves the reputation as having out smarted the enemy, at least not as much as he gets it.

For example it seems that more recent scholarship places his role in Op Uranus (the encirclement of the Axis armies at Stalingrad) as more of a background role, a coordinator but not a master planner. It appears the operational concept was more a Rokossovski show, with Vasilievsky as key to execution … rather than a Zhukov show. And the follow-on Op Saturn, which held stunning promise as the second swing of a one-two punch after Uranus, was morphed into Op "Little Saturn", and eventually fell far short of its potential, due in large part to Zhukov's insistence on his own unsuccessful Op Mars.

So among the big marshals Zhukov, Vatutin, Rokossovski, Konev, I really can't find that much to choose. All giants in their time, all men who were unflinching in putting millions of lives at risk (including their own), all with enormous ambitions, yet all managing to work together (after a fashion) to out-fight the Germans eventually. At least these four I distinguish from the "lesser" marshals, like Govorov, Malinovsky or Meretskov, who never seemed to stand out in my readings.

One step below, at the levels of actual Generals (rather than Marshals), I do have some favorites. Katukov is my top favorite. Anyone who could fight, and succeed, from the terrible retreats of mid-1941 through to the lightning advances of 1944/45 earns high marks in my book.

Katukov was a big proponent of learning from the men under his command, repeatedly referencing his combat veterans as "professors" of warfare. He had the unusual skill (among Russian generals) of preserving his command, whether in retreat or advance. He also had the unusual proclivity (among Russian Generals) of speaking his mind directly when Stalin asked questions about his combat experiences. He was a master of armored maneuver. So much import is given to Patton's 90 degree turn to attack the underbelly of the Bulge at Bastogne, but Katukov did 90 degree turns of his tank army half a dozen times in 1944, two or even three times in some campaigns.

I also think highly of Lelyushenko. As with Katukov, he fought from Barbarossa through to Berlin. It is hard to imagine how much skill must have been required to survive and succeed in such diverse conditions.

I am not so impressed by Rotminstrov. He seems to have re-written the history of Prokhorovka to his own favor. But as much as he rose to high position as a Marshal over all of the Soviet's tank forces after the war, in 1943/44 he was criticized and even disciplined for excessive casualties in his formations. It was NOT easy to get that kind of criticism in the Red Army of WW2!

Kravchenko probably deserves some mention as well. Much like Katukov he had a remarkable skill in operational maneuver, to driving his armored forces to appear where they were not expected. While Katukov did this by speed and fluidity, Kravchenko seems to have relied more heavily on maskirovka (hiding his intentions) and putting his engineers out front. His campaign in Manchuria in 1945 really put into practice almost every doctrinal lesson of the Red Army in WW2.

I'd put any of those three, Katukov, Lelyshenko and Kravchenko up against O'Conner, Patton, Rommel, or even Von Manstein.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I might also mention Rybalko. Not because of his skills and success as a general (though I find nothing to criticize there), but because he looked the role.

5'4", bald, and stocky. A walking fireplug in an overcoat.

If THAT is not the stock cold war Hollywood image of a Russian general, I don't know what is!

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Appreciate your thoughts, thorough as always, Mark.

Zhukov

From the stories my grandfather was telling me, Zhukov was not especially liked by soliders or ground officers. His arrival to your location usually meant something big, with potential of getting very ugly for you.
Of course, finishing war as artillery captain, he could not see the big picture, but he opreferred Vasilevskiy or Rockossovskiy – they were seen as those, who cared not only about results, but the lives of their soldiers, too.

There's a lot of various facts and books coming up now, some of them are 300-400 pages ofpainting Zhukov black, some more balanced but I have a feeling that the "historians" are bending the facts to fit into their theory.