Georgy Zhukov was the greatest Soviet Commander - A WWII Myths show

[@WWFanatic0]

I like Military History Visualized take on this stuff. He had one about "the best German General" and made a compelling argument. There were 2344 generals in the Heer. If we exclude reserve officers it's down to 1858. If we take two star and above we're down to 985. Whenever someone says X is the best general, ask them if they can name even 5% of those 985, what units they commanded, what they faced, and why they deserve the title of best. Heck ask them to do it for even 2-3% and they probably cannot do it. Just operation Barbarossa had 153 divisions in 37 corps in 11 armies/groups in 3 army groups (just of Germany's troops here). Heck even if we just looked at army and army group level plus an overall commander and deputy commander position, that's still 30 generals. Each of them had different forces, different support (be that fuel/ammo allocation, air support, etc), different opposing forces, and different terrain. Evaluating who did the best job or had the most impact of just those ~30 officers would be a monumental task as all the above factors are incredibly hard to quantify. If you got priority for fuel and shells, yeah, you probably will do better than those who were by definition deprioritized. This is also for just one campaign that was less than half a year. The Soviet army would mobilize far more men and form far more units which would make this task even harder even if we had perfectly detailed reports of every unit from regiment up on what happened. Add in the political elements whereby the supreme leaders of both Germany and the USSR did a lot of favorite picking at times and also there were certain...requirements...for achieving and maintaining your post...yeah this isn't an easy task. We can probably talk about generals in bands, above average, average, terrible, etc, but talking about who is best or worst when there's literally hundreds of choices, each who faced their own unique circumstances? Yeah I'm doubtful we'll ever be able to say X was the best. Like most topics, the more you know about it, the more you realize how little we actually know...

[@SuperchargedSupercharged]

Name one successful General that had a Supply chain that sucked.

[@robbygood3458]

That being said Rommel was the best because tank

[@biggiouschinnus7489]

My personal list of under-rated WWII generals is as follows: UK: Claude Auchinleck - took a deeply flawed army and made it beat Rommel twice through sheer force of personality, despite having little senior command experience or training himself. USSR: Ivan Bagramyan - successfully transitioned from staff officer to field commander, cut off and encircled German forces in the Baltics. US: Walter Krueger - led the Louisiana Manoeuvres, overcame the logistical challenges of the Pacific, beat Yamashita in a pitched land battle. Germany: Gotthard Heinrici - Blunted repeated Soviet offensives, master defensive tactician, one of the few German generals who tried to keep his humanity.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@biggiouschinnus7489 I think that Richard O Connor is underrated too!

[@richardwales9674]

Add Bill Slim, Auch went to India later as well.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@@richardwales9674 Yes!

[@whakafsg2377]

I would add general Bernard Fryberg to that list

[@TimothySagawa-xx8of]

How about Model? He beat Zhukov at Rhyzev, Monty in Market-Garden, and Bradley at Huertgen.

[@josephahner3031]

It seems to me that Zhukov was the Douglas MacArthur of the Red Army. An officer of average talent on the battlefield but a genius at image management. This makes me wonder, Zhukov might have been more effective in the defense of the Philippines than MacArthur. He does seem to have the sense to do what he has to do in defensive operations without grandstanding too much whereas MacArthur thought he was going to defend every inch of a massive archipelago with 11 divisions, most of which were half trained and under-equipped.

[@CruelDwarf]

Zhukov never done any sort of 'image management' other than being important enough and successful enough to be the leading man of Victory celebrations. His post-war reputation was definitely achieved against the political current in the Soviet Union as he spent vast majority of the post-war period in various degrees of disfavor. He was a proud man but definitely not a glory hound like MacArthur. And most of the bad stuff that we know about Georgy Konstantinovich is him being bad-mouthed by people who kept their grudges against him from the war, as he was a hard man to deal with.

[@colinellis5243]

You make an excellent comparison....there is definite equivalency between Macarthur and Zuckhov except I'm not sure Zuckhov was as big liar as 'Dugout Doug' and I've no idea if Zuckhov was a paedophile like Marcarhur.

[@CruelDwarf]

@NashVybar there is nothing like that in Zhukov memoirs. And he wasn't a pretender after Stalin's death. He specifically refused to go for power and it is exactly the reason why he sided with the party leadership against Beria. He had zero intentions of trying to be in charge.

[@CruelDwarf]

@NashVybar Zhukov didn't execute coup de etat. He supported political leadership of the country against supposed conspiracy. There is a difference.

[@twoheadeddatascientist3289]

Thank you for your comment. How would have Zhukov defended the Philippines with just 11 divisions?

[@DanielHammersley]

Zhukov was GREAT at tooting his own horn postwar (see also: Guderian, Manstein, etc), and managed not to get shot by Stalin before war's end, or worse, killed in battle like Vatutin (a masterful commander in his own right). I liked Val's analogy of Darth Vader of his volatile temperament too. I concur Vasilevsky, Rokossovsky, Katakov, and even Koniev get set aside by Historians unfairly so. Agreed, his name is always first to come up name-recognition wise. Splendid myth busting Woody & Val. Loved it!

[@1089maul]

Woody/Val. Excellent presentation! The only problem with short shows is that it leaves you wanting more! Thank. Bob

[@pault1289]

Great to see these very clear, concise deconstructions of more myths. Thank you Woody and Val!

[@arch_engineer8773]

It’s funny how people criticize after looking back at history through rose tinted glasses. Yes, Zhukov won at staggering cost, but do not forget that those staggering costs were also against the fate of total annihilation. I feel bad for the men that lost their lives, but the outcome was better than if Germany had taken control.

[@philbosworth3789]

Another very clear presentation from Val. Another 'myth' explored. Great stuff Woody & Val.

[@johnnydavis5896]

Zhukov's greatest ability may be that he could handle Stalin.

[@KPW2137]

Geez guys, I really like how you tackle myths and issues, possibly in a more interesting and in depth way than many channels.

[@WW2TV]

Thank you very much, we try

[@KPW2137]

You definitely get better results that Zhukov at Rzhev! @@WW2TV

[@WW2TV]

Not hard though lol

[@shoofly529]

"It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Red Army."-Joseph Stalin.

[@thcdreams654]

Thanks for the great content. Always cool to hear different perspectives and analysis.

[@chrisbricky7331]

Great show and work by the way. A really good breakdown of his war effort with good and bad points noted during the presentation. Thank you for sharing. This history is slowly disappearing as we get older and less and less of the veterans who sacrificed so much or all are leaving us forever. I fear we need strong men again to fight the evil pushing forth to enslave us all. Chris

[@KevinJones-yh2jb]

Another great myth buster show, many thanks Val and Woody, more from Val in the future Woody if you can

[@WW2TV]

Yep, he's busy with his own channel, but great idea

[@ritvikupadhyay7120]

Sounds like Zhukhov had the same idea every time. A double pincer to destroy the enemy. Anyway,thanks Woody and Val!

[@kemarisite]

24:04 "Greatest at getting credit", I began the presentation wondering if it might be some combination of this and not getting shot by Stalin.

[@williamdorsey2029]

Zhukov giving a 13 minute speech at the Victory Parade couldn't have endeared him to Stalin.

[@bananabrooks3836]

Depends if he's praising the boss.

[@alanrobertson9790]

@@bananabrooks3836 With a posting to the Odessa Military District obviously not enough. At least it wasn't Siberia.

[@worldoftone]

Great show Paul! Love to see all of the views!

[@f12mnb]

Was Zhukov the best Soviet ground leader? Yes, because he understood the political nature of his job. Were there better field commanders? Yes. Were there better politicians? Yes (remember Khruschev came to prominence during the war as a commisar). But as a marshal/general he was a good enough commander and good enough politician to navigate his way around Stalin and The STAVKA and managed to survive a long time. He had one great success at Khalkin Gol and that served as a pattern for his later plans - he was a dogged strategist not an original one.

[@Canopus44]

Great show. I'm kind of a fan of Rokossovsky :)

[@alanmountain5804]

Me too

[@scottgrimwood8868]

Excellent presentation. I know little about Soviet military commanders, and my knowledge was expanded today!

[@troystaunton254]

Nice being here so early. Interesting I’ve always believed that Zhukov was the greatest Soviet general, will be interesting to hear why or why not

[@annehersey9895]

I’m partial to Rokkosovsky and Vatutin.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

At the start, the speaker alluded to a battle to in which Zhukov was victorious, but added the caveat that it was due Zhukov himself having the preponderance of arms . Well isn’t that what makes a good general when going into battle? As the Americans once said, If you find yourself in a fair fight, your battle plan is wrong. Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forest once famously said, ‘Get there the firstest with the mostest’ Montgomery did precisely that at El Alamein.

[@WW2TV]

Ah, but Val wasn't saying Zhukov wasn't a good general, he was addressing the commonly held view that he ranks as one of the GREATEST generals of all time - big difference

[@anthonyeaton5153]

That is hair splitting semantics in a way. My point us still valid. Enjoyed the discussion tho.

[@WW2TV]

I think there is a big difference in the terms. There have been plenty of good footballers (1000s) in history (soccer if you prefer) but most fans would admit that only a handful of true greats - Pele, Maradona etc. So the same would apply to generals in WWII. I struggle to come up with more than 3 or 4 names of generals who could be called great, and then "greatest" is another big leap, again IMHO

[@josephahner3031]

I feel like the point Val makes about Zhukov's actions in the defense of Moscow showing poor leadership is inadequate. Overriding one's subordinates is not an act of poor leadership in and of itself. Indeed what is the point of a higher echelon commander if he should never overrule his subordinates? There are two major examples of higher echelon commanders overruling their subordinates that come to mind. General Sir Claude Auchinleck overruled Lieutenant-General Sir Alan Cunningham in Operation Crusader when the latter wanted to abandon the offensive after taking severe losses to the British armored forces despite the majority of his 8th Army having been virtually unscathed up to this point and the Axis armored forces having been mauled nearly as badly as the British. Cunningham was relieved of command and replaced by General Niel Ritchie who pressed the attack, relieved the Siege of Tobruk, and nearly destroyed the Afrika Corps. The second example was Adolf Hitler's stand fast order after the Battle of Moscow. Often heavily criticized by the Wehrmacht Generals that survived the war, the alternative was allowing Army Group Center to disintegrate, leaving a massive hole in the middle of the Axis front which the Soviets could have used to outflank Army Group North or Army Group South likely resulting in catastrophic defeat for Axis forces. I think AG North would have been the most likely because there were more and better roads and rails available to the North. In this case it certainly made tactical sense for Army Group Center to fall back and regroup but in the terrible weather this was unlikely to be successful and troops would have started freezing to death if they hadn't dug in and tried to hold out. Zhukov was the Front Commander, his job was to see the big picture in the area. Without further information on why he overruled his Corps commanders we cannot judge whether or not his decision not to fall back to the reservoir was correct. However, I can say that a reservoir is a valuable strategic asset. It's possible that Zhukov didn't want to risk losing the reservoir to the Germans or he didn't want to risk it's destruction in the fighting.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Good show. Can't argue with it. Just adding that prior to the failure to trap the Germans in the Kamenets-Podolsk Pocket, as Val mentioned, there was also the Cherkassy-Korsun pocket where 2/3 of the trapped and cut off Axis troops managed to get away as well. Cheers.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

In terms of ultimate victory contribution against the Germans? Zhukov. In terms of combined arms warfare? It's a tie between Rokossovsky and Vatutin. The Soviet commanders operated on a whole new scale when compared to the Western Allies. Good presentation Woody & Val.

[@KPW2137]

I'd add Fyodor Tolbuchin. He is not as remembered but he was first class and exceptionally committed to the idea of keeping his losses low while having the job done.

[@AdarshKumar-lh3wo]

​@@KPW2137 Tolbukin really is underrated. But all Soviet commanders in 1944 were exceptional. From Konev to Malinoosky to Bagryaman to Rokosskovy , they all were able commanders. Also, subordinates like Chuikov, Gorolov , were very able commanders.

[@KPW2137]

Well, not all but quite a few. One I'd say was very overrated in the Soviet times and now is rightfulyl forgotten is Rotmistrov. @@AdarshKumar-lh3wo

[@AdarshKumar-lh3wo]

@@KPW2137 I do not know why you would say Rotmistrov out of all Soviet Tank gurads army commander as underrated? In what sense was he underated? He never performed exceptionally, lost numerous tanks in parkhorva sector during battle of Kurse, albeit he stopped the German advance, and was about to he court martialled by Stalin. He was a ordinary at best and incompetent at best. There was nothing underrated about him.

[@KPW2137]

A misunderstanding - I mentioned he was overrated, if anything. He was not a good commander for sure. The reason I mentioned him was the fact I remember how in the Soviet times he was still lauded as quite a hero. In essence, you put it right @@AdarshKumar-lh3wo

[@jimwalsh1958space]

in the excellent film 'the death of stalin' zhukov should have been played by Silvio Berlusconi

[@bookaufman9643]

I also remember that Zhukov launch failed counter-attack after failed counter-attack during the active part of the Battle of Stalingrad. Supposedly it was to take pressure off of Chuikov's forces but it was a repeated waste of Russian lives with no real impact.

[@aps125]

Zhukov was also the culprit behind Rzhev Meat Grinder fiasco of 1942. However the numerous counter attacks from the north was not complete failure as you stated. It forced Paulus to devote substantial forces from 6th Armee to beef up its left flank. These resources could have played a decisive role of fighting inside Stalingrad.

[@johnlucas8479]

another very informative presentation.

[@Waterflux]

I feel more or less the same about Zhukov. I think his greatest contribution was in 1941 when someone was badly needed to step in and stiffen the Soviet lines. Considering the sheer scale of carnage and confusion faced by the Red Army, demanding subordinates to stand and fight or be on the receiving end of executioner's bullet might have been appropriate. (In times of severe crisis, a simple and direct approach works better than something clever or cutesy.) However, Zhukov as a military mind seemed to be less suited for the Red Army once it could stand on its own--a different kind of leadership was needed. A side-note: It could well be that Zhukov was the kind of military leader who was the "best fit" under Stalin? After all, both of them shared one key tendency, namely treating manpower as cannon fodders with next to no regard for weighing the human cost and the task at hand. Furthermore, Zhukov's humble ground and lack of culture might also have been more tolerable to Stalin. (Replace Zhukov with Tukhachevsky or someone similar as the wartime deputy supreme commander. Do you think Stalin would have had a better working relations? Megalomaniacs generally do not react well to having someone who is both better informed and better cultured than them. Meanwhile, Vasilevsky, although intelligent and talented, was low-key, similar to Shaposhnikov, thus Stalin did not perceive Vasilevsky as a threat.)

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

You would be absolutely wrong to think, that any other person can fight that war for USSR other way then "treating manpower as cannon fodders with next to no regard for weighing the human cost and the task at hand". That was how war was won, that was a system at a time (ant to some extend still). No one person can change it and somehow have different country behind him - with different system and different people. I think that main part people not getting now.

[@elisekehle8520]

I loved the 1985 Battle of Moscow films- Zhukov power-walks his way across the battlefields and Hitler does jazz hands. I was not prepared for either of those!

[@coachhannah2403]

Zhukov had a great biographer!

[@arunta5]

Eisenhower had to try and get on with him but was appalled at his tactics of clearing minefields by marching troops through them.

[@TheBizziniss]

I swear that officers at that level just need an overall concept of how they want to behave as a military. Strategically you don’t have to be that brilliant, and the tactics at that level are all theoretical until an officer at a lower level executes the tactics effectively, which always requires initiative on the lower officers part. The high level officer like Zhukov are excellent at organization and logistics. Same with MacArthur and Eisenhower. They were all great at organizers. It takes a Bradley and at a lower level, a guy like Patton to make it all work. And yes I said Bradley because he is probably the least celebrated but most successful general we had in Europe.

[@Francois15031967]

Life is piece of cake when you have infinite number of soldiers who have the choice between death by the enemy or death by firing squad.

[@charlessax4385]

He would, based on his disregard for lives, made a great ww 1 general.

[@CruelDwarf]

Zhukov was actually one of the best Soviet commanders in terms of regards of human life. His casualty ratios are about the lowest if you frame them in terms of relative numbers (Zhukov consistently commanded the largest Soviet forces and so suffered proportionally higher losses in absolute numbers) and fierceness of the fighting. He was abrasive and a hard man to deal with but he actually cared about the soldier.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

@@CruelDwarf Zhukov threatened any soldier who surrendered that their extended family would be held responsible. He forgot that Stalins son had surrendered earlier in the war. He Commanded by brutality.

[@CruelDwarf]

@@anthonyeaton5153 He did no such thing. It is exactly a post-war kind of bullshit that become to float around. For example I will quote a part of recorded radio conversation between Zhukov and Vlasov (yeah, that one, way before his betrayal) on January 20, 1942. " I assure you, you will be near your objectives ten times faster with lesser losses. You must send the forward units no later than in the morning. Forward units must be under command of brave and capable commanders and strong enough to break through recon and screening forces. You can promise Lenin order to the commanders and goverment awards to soldiers for exemplary performance You will not need much of artillery here too. We still cannot win a tactical fight, we must win through our operative skill by threating the enemy with flanking and encirclement. The enemy is afraid of it. And the enemy is not afraid of your assaults along the roads at all. What do you think about this?" Does it sound like someone who commanded by brutality? If you read the whole conversation, Zhukov is astutely intelligent in it and tries to give Vlasov actually good advice instead of going 'Vader-like' on him.

[@josephglatz25]

I remember the odd thing about operation Mars, according to Antony Beevor, was that Zhukov spent less time at the front before the operation, and in terms of supplies allocated, particularly artillery ammunition, Operation Uranus received far more per gun than the those for Operation Mars. If it really was a co-equal operation to Uranus, as argued by David Glantz, it seems to be more like it was cobbled together in a hurry rather than carefully and deliberately arranged. Or, as the artillery ammunition allocation suggests, it was intended to be ancillary to, and in support of Operation Uranus.

[@barryobee1544]

Very interesting subject matter!

[@WW2TV]

Glad you think so!

[@zeronzemesh7718]

I think all your points are valid, but I also think that Zhukov played into the system that Stalin set up and it caused him to make stupid decisions. Many of these were decisions that Stalin would have made, because Stalin was an incompetent moron. The Soviets did have some solid generals, but they also had some absolute idiots that should never have been near a battlefield. I think Zhukov was a competent leader, but he was trying to balance the wire between competence and pleasing Stalin.

[@robertmiller9735]

I have a book that labels that picture in front of the car as Semyon Timoshenko. Just checked their portraits... that's not Timoshenko's chin!

[@AdamMisnik]

I am often critical of the historians on this show for both tearing down a figure without balancing it by acknowledging their qualities or situation, and treating as moral outrage the previous positive reputation as if the historian was personally lied to. Whether you agree with his assessment or not, this guy does it as right as can be asked. War isn't chess and it is rare that someone can practice it and look good much less clever without having a talent for PR. In any case, encirclements require the cooperation of your opponent. Paulus was accommodating and Hube was not. I don't think Zhukov can be blamed for that. (Actually, I think Hube deserves a lot of credit for that outcome.) I think this historian's assessment shows up best in Zhukov's management at Rzhev and the Seelow Heights. In Zhukov's defense, he actually won at Seelow Heights and the German forces there and Rzhev could not be used elsewhere. Thanks for another good show and looking forward to hearing more about the other Soviet commanders mentioned as worthy of praise.

[@Waterflux]

By the way ...... Around 25:30 Val briefly mentioned about the "ideal" Red Army command under which he would prefer to serve (Vasilvsky-->Rokossovsky-->Katukov). I feel exactly the same! ⭐The most attractive combination of traits all three shared: Operational acumen; paying attention to logistics; tactfulness with both the superiors and the subordinates. To WW2TV: I wonder if future WW2TV additions to the Myths and/or the Red Army series would consider delving into Red Army commanders much less well-known than the likes of Rokossovsky and Katukov. Examples of even less well-known Red army commanders: Markian M. Popov (commanded Bryansk Front during the 1943 Battle of Kursk); Nikolai E. Berzarin (commanded 5th Shock Army during the 1945 Battle of Berlin); P. I. Batov (commanded the 65th Army between late 1942 ~ mid 1945 and served under Rokossovsky throughout the very same period). Unfortunately, the limiting factor consists of the rather puny niche the WW2-historian-enthusiast community interested in the WW2 Red Army across the borders has relative to the entire global military history community..

[@shoofly529]

"Quantity has a quality all its own."-Joseph Stalin

[@mte2960]

Great presenter👍

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Zhukov gets too much credit for the Defense of Leningrad as well. Granted, he was a huge improvement over Voroshilov - mainly because he listened to Zhdanov, while Voroshilov didn't. There is a pattern here.

[@gordy3714]

Woody Is it worth doing a similar programme with Rokossovsky.

[@WW2TV]

We've talked about Rokossovsky before though

[@gordy3714]

@@WW2TV Pavel Rotmistrov is a interesting character also.

[@WW2TV]

Yep

[@Monthenyabas]

Ivan konev? i would like to see more videos on soviet Generals and Marshals

[@squidgypoppet]

Great video, will we see one on the nkvd and penal battlions? Or british feild secuirty units dealing with trouble in the rear areas ? 🍻

[@WW2TV]

Maybe if I can find guests

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

You men that penal battlions newer existed, it was penal companies? :)

[@WW2TV]

But we say battalion based on the word Strafbataillon, even though the units were smaller

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

@@WW2TV It is internal joke. I Russian speaking community for military history most common debate line "you are idiot, that was companies for solders, not battalions " Thing is - battalions was for officers and on front level. And that was sort of elite units - at the end of the day everybody there had been officer. And for a privates it was companies, on army level. Those actually referenced as "penal battalions" by meaning, though those companies was not really included in any battalion hierarchy.

[@WW2TV]

Okay

[@brunozeigerts6379]

To me, an interesting comparison of generals in almost any war is... how well would they do if the roles were switched? If Zhukov swapped places with Von Paulus or Von Rundstedt, how well would either do?

[@JohnKobaRuddy]

Rokosovsky deserves more attention amongst many others who were killed before the end of the war.

[@torarildhenriksen371]

I dont know if he was the best but he was the most ruthless

[@WW2TV]

Agreed

[@Chiller11]

Premier Soviet commander; I vote for Rokossovsky based on his name alone. Vitutin is cool but Rokossovsky just rolls off the tongue.

[@colindunnigan8621]

How did Vatutin and Koniev rate? I heard (but can't confirm) that the former actually tried to minimize his casualties.

[@WW2TV]

Val spoke about Vatutin, the fact he died so early meaning it is hard to judge him

[@simonargall5508]

Nice.

[@aps125]

Zhukov was the greatest commander for Red Army of WW2, no doubt. His style fitted perfectly with Russian way of conducting warfare, by brute force. Wehrmacht had brilliant tacticians, who outclassed all of her contemporary opponents. That made little difference in the final outcome of WW2.

[@johndeboyace7943]

This criticism seems very similar to that of Grant during the US Civil war. He had numerical superiority and used it to hammer the enemy. As someone once said, “there is no substitute for victory”. Who was prominent in the victory parade on a white horse? The Russian front was immense with staggering casualties on both sides, and he was the most prominent for whatever reason. The Russian way of war was to move and keep contact wearing the enemy down. Where is this happening today? The myth is that there was a myth, no one after the war thought he won the war by himself. The Soviet soldiers won while suffering millions of casualties. Having more men and material doesn’t insure victory.

[@johnzengerle7576]

What about Kalinin Gaul (sp?)? Didn’t he do well there?

[@vinkobosnyak4463]

Rokossovisky was the best, took care of his men when he could. He was Zukov's superior at one stage, but due to his polish ancestry had him on the rack during Stalin's purge of officers.

[@cenccenc946]

awsome

[@Ycjedi]

Lots of good insight, but some of this drifts into Monday morning armchair quarterbacking. Edicts like the No Step Back policy are directly from Stalin. Kinda ties your hands and limits your options strategically in many cases, unless you want to be shot or sent to a Siberian gulag.

[@zurababayev8397]

I disagree with Mr. Aslanyan about khalkhin gol ( nomonhan) in 1939. The fact is, double envelopment plan was actually designed by army commander Shtern. Zhukov played no role in its development. However, after Shtern was killed by stalin, zhukov usurped all the glory. Little reminder : all documents about nomonhan are still classified in Russia

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

And then how do you know that "envelopment plan was actually designed by army commander Shtern"?

[@zurababayev8397]

@vladimirpecherskiy1910 first hand witness- General Pavel Grigorenko who managed to survive

[@zurababayev8397]

@vladimirpecherskiy1910 nice summary of zhukov lies could be found in the book by Viktor Suvorov "Тень победы " ( shadow of victory)- please read chapter 2

[@zurababayev8397]

@vladimirpecherskiy1910 also, admiral Nikolai Kuznetzov stated the same in 1992 in военно-исторический журнал

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

@@zurababayev8397 Grigorenko is not the most trustable account.

[@ernstwiltmann6]

I find your use of sources amusing.

[@WW2TV]

Meaning what? That's just a pointless comment. Not constructive, just patronising

[@ernstwiltmann6]

@@WW2TV Imagine a biography of Canadian Brass would relay on Chinese, Russian, or other unfriendly Historians .

[@WW2TV]

@ernstwiltmann6 western historians routinely make use of Russian archives, well they did when they were open. But you still haven't pointed out a specific detail you disagree with

[@johnnydavis5896]

In the West, how many of the Soviet Generals did the West know? And how much did they really understand the eastern campaigns? Their opinions about Soviet commanders don't mean much.

[@ToddSauve]

Well, the Western Allies did know the Soviet army was poorly trained and led by the same sorts. Russian liaison officers sent to observe the Western Allies in Italy and northwestern Europe marvelled that we attacked the Germans with a 3 to 1 advantage. They confessed they would never attack the Germans unless they had at least a 5 to 1 advantage. If that doesn't clue a person in, nothing will.

[@MMircea]

Zhukov was a war criminal even before Barbarossa started. Fortunately for him, he didn't end up next to his Wehrmacht buddies at Nurnberg. He served under the only regime where he couldn't be court martialled and shot at the end of the war.

[@MMircea]

@northernhound3899 not for him, as long as he either brought victories or was well aligned with the Communist Party. Budionny was never shot, and he lost an entire army group.

[@KPW2137]

Budionny, just like Voroshilow had the Best Friends with Stalin, Not a Threat card @@MMircea

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

And why exactly he was "war criminal"?

[@MMircea]

@@vladimirpecherskiy1910 Let's just say he isn't well remembered in Chisinau/Kisinev for the 1940 occupation

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

@@MMircea Well, I do not think you can blame those events on him, neither he did something special during those.

[@RT-far-T]

Rokossovsky was the greatest large formation commabder of WW2.

[@rabbi120348]

"She stares off alone into the night With the eyes of one who hates for just being born... Bruce Springsteen. "Racing in the Street"

[@WW2TV]

Don't see the relevancy but thanks for the comment

[@rabbi120348]

@@WW2TV At the beginning he talked about Zhukov scowling and staring off into the distance. It reminded me of Sprinsteen's evocative lyrics.

[@WW2TV]

Okay thanks

[@petestorz172]

Odd side question, was actor Mikhail Alexandrovich Ulyanov related to Lenin, whose actual family name was Ulyanov?

[@WW2TV]

I don't know, sorry

[@petestorz172]

@@WW2TV , Appreciate the response.

[@WW2TV]

I cannot find anything about them being related

[@HotRodMolina]

Who gained the farthest advance in an armored unit in WWII, Guderian, Patton, or Zukhov?

[@markcreemore4915]

The Rzhev disasters would seem to indicate that he was a very mediocre general. Chuikov amd Konev were much better.

[@TimothySagawa-xx8of]

Though Zhukov got his ass handed to him at Rhyzev one should remember that he was facing the best defensive tactician of the war, namely Walther Model aka "the Fuehrer's Fireman."

[@brianw612]

Perhaps Zhukov threw everyone into a meat grinder of Berlin because the outcome was assured and the Soviets didn't need all those troops after the war. It may have been preferred that they were expended.

[@David-h4n9h]

He was long as he had thousands men to sacrifice

[@alfred-vz8ti]

just keeping your head was a talent, in ussr. zhukov was no grand tactician, perhaps he was competent at getting the trops fed and re-supplied. the sovs had an unfacorable kill-ratio almost to the gates of the reichtag.. but the nazis ran out of people, guns and hope first. so you celebrate your leading general.

[@davidsabillon5182]

❤

[@johnbrowning8785]

Let's see one on Konev

[@alessiobaccetti2235]

Fact Zukov save a future war with Japan with nohan , zukov is firreman of stalin save leningrad , mockba . is ruthless but that best commander of soviet . rokossosky is maybe best operational general with vatunin ? maybe but Zukov can discute with stalin other no

[@bananabrooks3836]

Red flag on the Riechstag before May day parade pressure? Was dividing Berlin and giving each lieutenants a sector to take wrong? Didn't the White horse misbehave when Stalin had a practice run, so he gave the job to Zhukov?

[@velvetcroc9827]

Zhukov may not have been a military genius (people of more than modest abilities did not survive around Stalin), but then it took no great genius to realize what was required, and that Stalin's incessant waves of small-scale offensives were hardly going to win the war. Since the Germans were slowly withdrawing by 1944, it was easy for Stalin to proclaim the success of each offensive. So the Soviet dictator apparently began to lose interest in the immediate direction of the war, increasingly satisfied by his generals bringing him news of triumphs and successes. The root cause of Soviet success however was not Zhukov or any other commander. It was allied aid. Here’s why. There had never been any serious attention paid to the movement of infantry, artillery, and supplies by truck in the Red Army. In the constant retreats of the first two years that lack had been masked by the simple fact that as they retreated, the Soviets were more and more able to depend on interior lines of supply, notably railroads. One basic reason for the slow tempo of Soviet offensives was the need to build up matériel in support, and the lack of trucks to move supplies from railheads to the troops poised for the attack. Once the tanks broke through, there was no easy way for the infantry to follow them, and both components found themselves on their own, without the steady stream of supplies and heavy artillery they needed to consolidate their advance. Consequently, the exploitation phase of any breakthrough was limited to the speed with which the average soldier could advance on his own two feet. In the later years of the war the vast flow of Allied equipment was beginning to change this miserable situation. The fact that Studebaker and Willys became words with which every Russian of that generation was familiar is a telling reminder of the fact that the victorious Red Army was essentially dependent on imported trucks.

[@jon-y6x]

Subordinates didn't want to give him bad news...Putin and Kyiv come to mind.

[@andybarth5928]

absolut my opinion on this topic.... solid but flawed

[@pasangunasena3848]

😂How easy it is to critizise a persons action without considering the magnitude of the task the implements at hand and the times the events took place

[@justinmoore8581]

All fair enough in establishing Zhukov wasn't perfect or infallible or undefeated. But the issue claimed he was the best Soviet or general of the war. So to disprove that you'd have to posit someone else you could parachute into commanding the battles of Leningrad and Moscow and come out a winner. So yeah...who?

[@WW2TV]

But isn't that a separate issue? We were not saying he was incompetent or anything, just that he doesn't deserve to be considered the GOAT? Plus as many viewers said, was the successful defence of Moscow because of or despite Zhukov?

[@billballbuster7186]

Very good presentation Thank You. Zhukov firmly got his name in the papers after the battles of Khalkhin Gol, he certainly terrified the Japanese, who up until then had been dominant. In WW2 Zhukov had no special skills, he won his battles by superior numbers and equipment and even then turned the battles into bloodbaths. He had none of the qualities of a great General except for the propaganda coverage he was mediocre. I think with the resources available any General could have won the battle of Berlin. The Americans and British would probably have had a easier time taking Berlin, fear of the Russian "Mongol Hordes" would have been a big incentive to surrender.

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

Well, nobody beat Germans in WW2 with inferior numbers :) In fact I think it was other "myth busting" video about Germans not been best soldiers of WW2 - well, they was :) That what real military actually doing - contradictory myths - they are winning on their advantages. Those advantages they can get.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@@vladimirpecherskiy1910 "Well, nobody beat Germans in WW2 with inferior numbers :)" Actually you could say that Siege of Tobruk, Battle of Britain, Siege of Bastogne and the Battle of Moscow were won with inferior numbers.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@vladimirpecherskiy1910 Because of Generals like Zhukov, the Red Army lost 9 Million men in WW2. That is more than all sides in WW1, a truely unimaginable figure. But this seems normal for Russia as far back as Crimean War, Russia lost three times as many men to a much smaller Allied army.

[@ToddSauve]

@@vladimirpecherskiy1910 You may be a nice fellow Vlad, but that is nonsense.

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- You could. But that would be incorrect :) We can go in details in each case - but that basically just not true in terms of "beat"

[@mcmoose64]

I believe that he was the greatest commander of WW2, based entirely on multiple viewings of The Death of Stalin. 😂

[@WW2TV]

Now that's an honest appraisal - thanks

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

No Zhukov was the greatest Russian military commander who survived Stanlin’s purges.

[@WW2TV]

In your opinion. Thanks for the comment

[@danwelterweight4137]

To be fair to him if he had not threatened to shot the families of the soldiers defending Leningrad and they would have surrendered or run away the Germans would have shot and killed their families anyways. 😂

[@MegaBloggs1]

Rossosovky was better-zhukov was good in mongolia and leningrad

[@basiliodubko6447]

Now we discover that Zhukov was a stooge? Taking a motion picture as reference for this presentation is not very serious... Anyways, Giorgii Konstantinovich made lots of errors but in the end they prevailed over all german generals...

[@slowmo9642]

Great video terrible hat lol.

[@WW2TV]

Ah that hat is where my brains are

[@slowmo9642]

@@WW2TV lol

[@WW2TV]

The hat gets as many comments as I do

[@sumivescent]

I'm not sure there is that much of a myth to begin with. Especially now and Zhukov the Butcher was at least a prominent take reinforced through the Cold War narratives of Soviet Army. Furthermore, it feels like we're beating Zhukov with the wehraboo stick that we largely put away when dealing with war in west. Having advantages in not a crime nor is some kind bullet proof assurance of perfect victory. The two sides were also not "playing" with the same figure set. Zhukov operated with a blunt instrument, at tactical level germans always took better trades, probably outshot the soviets in artillery and it didn't have to do anything with the skill of operational german command. These circumstances, already worsened by massive casualties of 1941 and then poor replacement quality throughout need to be taken into account when talking about "costly" or blaming him for not fully perfect victories in year 1941 of all things.

[@hardanheavy]

How widespread is this 'myth' about Zhukov being the greatest Soviet commander? Not that widely spread at all. It feels a bit clickbaity to set up a myth in order to deconstruct it.

[@WW2TV]

It is very widespread, here are a few examples: coffeeordie.com/greatest-generals-statistics www.badassoftheweek.com/zhukov www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/georgy-zhukov-greatest-unsung-wwii-general.html Episode 6 on Greatest Commander tv.apple.com/gb/show/the-great-commanders/umc.cmc.4rpcp0aornnmg5lt87xtp4jzl So as you can see it is widely stated he was not just a great Soviet commander, but one of the best from any nation. This myth is VERY established

[@hardanheavy]

@@WW2TVFair enough. I must have spent more time in a bubble where his rep is more or less 'throw enough soldiers in and the problem will be solved'. So, not that great.

[@scottjoseph9578]

Zhukov was the greatest WWII General, period.

[@alanrobertson9790]

Putting a period after a statement is no argument at all. Period.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

He certainly faced the Germans at the absolute peak of their powers, which was no easy feat. Especially given how much of the experienced Soviet officer corps were gutted in 1936-1938.

[@alanrobertson9790]

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Well that at least is an argument, better than a period. I don't know more than Val on the subject so was persuaded by his more detailed discussions. Looks like Zhukov was like Sherman in that both were happy to sacrifice troops in a meat grinder.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@@alanrobertson9790 Yes he literally forced soldiers to march through mine fields, talk about ruthless.

[@alanrobertson9790]

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- I thought they were penal battalions. Men cheaper than tanks! I suppose there weren't many sheep. Thought they used sheep in the Falklands.

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

Well, I am sorry, but that absolutely stupid question put in a first place (and this is a problem of format itself) "Zhukov was the greatest Soviet Commander" is a myth. Hi is in fact greatest Soviet Commander of WW2. One can argue that Rokossovsky is better front commander then Zhukov or not. But Rokossovsky had not been on same level as Zhukov - he started war as corps commander and newer been on strategical level. And boy just fanny with his understanding of a war "yes, he did, but not ideally" :) Was Zhukov some type of military genius - no. Was he most impotent soviet commander in WW2 - yes. It just as simple as this.

[@WW2TV]

I'm not sure I follow your logic? Are you saying the title "Zhukov was the greatest Soviet Commander" should have been "Zhukov was the greatest Soviet Commander of WW2"? Because we're WW2TV there isn't a need to specify which war, as we only talk about the one. But ultimately these shows spark debate, and that's a good thing

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

@@WW2TV Yes, Zhukov was the greatest Soviet Commander of WW2. Naturally, you can do endless debates what "greatest" means (and it means nothing by itself). So "most imported" would much more correct statement. I think you have a fundamental problem with approach to speak about history as myth busting. That pretty limited by it's nature. Yes, some things is clear myth, but not so many. You can not teach history base only on that. What people can really learn from this video? I am afraid not that much.

[@WW2TV]

Well, our myths shows are proving popular and are an interesting concept. But it remains a fact that for many people Zhukov is considered "the greatest" and this video suggested he wasn't. That's it, it's not trying to do more. But if you don't like the format oi the history, that's fine I guess, there are plenty of other history channels out there

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

@@WW2TV Well, naturally you can play "if you do not like my content - do not watch it". Up to you man. Question is - what you really want to present. If you have one day somebody like John Parshal and another - like this boy - that just not equal quality content. This one just poor quality - just as simple as that. It is up to you - to take it into account or not.

[@WW2TV]

I want to present a variety of interpretations. Jon Parshall, one day, a different historian the next. I have people who detest Parshall's interpretations too. That's the thing I guess, viewers have the guests they like and those they don't. Others have liked this show, so are they wrong? Or is simply that we have different opinions?

[@chrisbricky7331]

Alexander Rodimtsev was a great commander. Zhukov was ok. Montgomery was shit. :) Chris

[@WW2TV]

We will do a Monty show one day

[@Ycjedi]

Who was worse, Montgomery or MacArthur? 🤔

[@WW2TV]

Neither come into my thinking for worst of anything, apart from maybe egos

[@chrisbricky7331]

Monty was a world war 1 general. He did well when he outnumbered his opponent 8-1 or better. If he didn't have overwhelming numbers and logistics to match plus total air superiority, he was shit or worse. Yes I am a history nut and worked in the gaming industry for world war two tabletop miniature games. Monty received incredible press like Rommel, most undeserved but needed for the propaganda value. Well love to see the break down of Monty's war effort. Especially don't leave out the data on numbers he had vs what he faced.

[@chrisbricky7331]

I wouldn't trust either. Both were vainglorious fame hounds. My Dad fought in world war two in the Pacific, then the entire Korean War. He had nothing good to say about Mac.