Who was the best Russian General of World War II?

Who was the best Russian General of World War II?

  • Ivan Konev

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • Georgy Zhukov

    Votes: 35 68.6%
  • Rodion Malinovsky

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • Hovhannes Bagramyan

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • Aleksandr Vasilevsky

    Votes: 4 7.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 9.8%

  • Total voters
    51
Isn't it generally accepted that RKKA training was atrociously bad, though, especially for officers? A month or two at military school if you were lucky, or direct commission in many cases. The equipment wasn't as bad as people make it out, though; that was primarily the immediate shortfall after the huge initial losses to Barbarossa.
 
That's probably the 100-someth topic on the best Soviet genera of WWII.:rolleyes:
My vote goes for Konstantin Rokossovsky.
Vassily Chuikov was also good.
And he is not in the list...:(
Meretskov, Yeremenko and Vatutin are missing too.
And Apanassenko!
Meretskov should not be in this list. Good solid general, very capable, but nothing outstanding. Chuikov was good, but there's something "being as scary for his own troops as for an enemy" about him, one of those Soviet generals who valued ordinary grunt as much as one values his lunch. Same thing about Yeremenko. Vatutin should be on this list, it's crying shame for me not to mention him. Apanassenko? I know about your obsession with this guy, but (due to his premature death) he proved himself to be more of outstanding military organizer than battle general.

Isn't it generally accepted
You need to be careful with this "generally accepted" bit, as far as recent history is concerned. Cold War brought up two "generally accepted" POVs, each was generally accepted by one camp and generally despised by another camp. Different factors were at play to create those POVs, but quest for the truth wasn't one of them, or at least it wasn't high on the priority list. Getting advantage for their respective camp trampled quest for the truth every time. Former ComBloc historians re-assessed their "generally accepted" POVs after the Cold War but Westerners, considering themselves winning side, held their delusions as absolute truths. History not being an exact science at all, delusion can be generally accepted as long as it has powerful lobby interested in keeping it "generally accepted view". And, taking into account that scientific establishment of today made their careers on establishing those "truths", it is no wonder there's very little appetite for soul searching. Nowhere is it more evident than in Western views of RKKA's history, shaped by the dire need to de-humanize potential foe and represent it as a horde of primitive untermenchen.

RKKA training was atrociously bad, though, especially for officers?
Yes and no. Correct definition is "adequate", or what was considered by superiors as adequate. In the darkest days of 1941 it could have been days for an ordinary grunt (however, those hastily mobilized units weren't even called "army", it was "volksturm"), normally it was 6 to 8 months. It is true that Soviet commanders were not concerned with value of every human life in a sense we are concerned today (although Douglas Haig would have been able to understand Soviet approach immediately), but they valued human capital. Pilots were expensive, grunts were mostly expandable, everybody else in between.

A month or two at military school if you were lucky, or direct commission in many cases.
Direct comission was rare to non-existent (sergeant or even gifted soldier could be temporarily promoted to platoon or even company commander at the heat of the battle, but it was strictly temporarily assignment and he was due to be immediately replaced once front stabilizes a bit). Military school usually lasted about 6 months (for seasoned vets, sent from front lines) to a year (for high school graduates, who needed initial shakedown to military life first). Not fat, but did it differ that much from what Americans were getting?
 
That's some good points you bring up, I suppose. What I've read says that as a sergeant or gifted private, you could be directly commissioned as a Junior Lieutenant, but not generally advance further without add-on studies; I didn't know the assignment was temporary, if that's what we're both talking about. Furthermore, I'd understood it that the Army was constantly lacking officers; most companies and some battalions had sergeants in charge of supply, for example, if my histories are to be believed. The shortage of officers would've been immediate even before the war, with the massive expansions then underway, to grow critical during Barbarossa and the first years after the invasion, before gradually lessening.
 
That's some good points you bring up, I suppose. What I've read says that as a sergeant or gifted private, you could be directly commissioned as a Junior Lieutenant, but not generally advance further without add-on studies; I didn't know the assignment was temporary, if that's what we're both talking about.
I'm pretty sure there wasn't a system of direct promotion, although I can't exclude possible exceptions. Yes, training was often less than adequate, guided by "needs must when the devil drives" principle, but no direct promotion still. Once one became an officer, it was completely different game. My relative joined RKKA in 1941 as aircraft engineering sophomore. He graduated some kind of Air Force support officer school (short-term) and had been an Air Force Major by the war's end. He didn't turn 23 in 1945... However, majority of those war promotion officers had been put through proper Military Academies in 1946-1956 to compensate for the lack of theoretical knowledge.

Furthermore, I'd understood it that the Army was constantly lacking officers; most companies and some battalions had sergeants in charge of supply, for example, if my histories are to be believed.
Wait, don't senior NCOs perform the same role in Western armies? However, shortage of experience leadership did plague Red Army during WWII. However, I would say that it was the gravest among middle and senior levels.
 
I'm pretty sure there wasn't a system of direct promotion, although I can't exclude possible exceptions. Yes, training was often less than adequate, guided by "needs must when the devil drives" principle, but no direct promotion still. Once one became an officer, it was completely different game. My relative joined RKKA in 1941 as aircraft engineering sophomore. He graduated some kind of Air Force support officer school (short-term) and had been an Air Force Major by the war's end. He didn't turn 23 in 1945... However, majority of those war promotion officers had been put through proper Military Academies in 1946-1956 to compensate for the lack of theoretical knowledge.

Post-war was another matter, of course. My main area of study was always interwar and the war itself. That's certainly some interesting stuff.

Wait, don't senior NCOs perform the same role in Western armies? However, shortage of experience leadership did plague Red Army during WWII. However, I would say that it was the gravest among middle and senior levels.

Yes, but the way I got it, at least in the prewar RKKA NCOs basically didn't get much education at all, but were chosen from among the men and perhaps got a few courses later.
 
Whatever you say, sir!:rolleyes:
Here it goes http://www.autogallery.org.ru/gal.htm
look at the persentage of vehicles used (unfortunately, I don't have separate numbers of vehices per year and per sphere of usage in English but it may give you a general idea of Soviet dependency on US-made cars during WWII and afrewar period).
Ill-trained, badly-equipped RKKA is mainly a mythological monster created by propaganda. It was worse tranied and worse equipped than, say, Wehrmacht but devil is concealed in details and we will need to go into these details to understad all wheres, whiches and whies.;)

I've been reading too many western military history books. Better find some Russian ones though I can't read Russian. But i've heard that even Russian books are plagued with propaganda and nation-gloryfiying.
 

Stalker

Banned
I've been reading too many western military history books. Better find some Russian ones though I can't read Russian. But i've heard that even Russian books are plagued with propaganda and nation-gloryfiying.
Yes, some of them. But not to a very much greater degree than Western books on history. There are exceptions still.
 

Stalker

Banned
Meretskov should not be in this list. Good solid general, very capable, but nothing outstanding. Chuikov was good, but there's something "being as scary for his own troops as for an enemy" about him, one of those Soviet generals who valued ordinary grunt as much as one values his lunch. Same thing about Yeremenko. Vatutin should be on this list, it's crying shame for me not to mention him. Apanassenko? I know about your obsession with this guy, but (due to his premature death) he proved himself to be more of outstanding military organizer than battle general.
OK. Meretskov is a really smaller person than those already in the list.
Chuikov? Well, I may judge him for being tough and fierce - who else less fiercefull and fearful even to his soldiers could stand that slaughter on Mamayev Mound? He did not spare his soldiers, true but he didn't spare himself either. His HQ was right in several hundred meters of German line and later Paulus could not believe that Chuikov all that time had been in a hand's reach from Germans attacking Mamayev Mound. Remember, a very bright example when the staff told Vassily Ivanovich (Chuikov) he could leave his position for a while and cross the river to have a bath in the rear. He made a few paces in direction of the cutter then looked behind his back and saw soldiers' faces staring, their eyes full of bitterness and anguish - they didn't have bath for weeks or even months. And he waved off his orderlies, staff officers sending them to the rear and stayed. When the battle ended, he came out dirty, with eczema on his hands and feet but he came out as a victor. White gloves and neat uniform didn't save Friedrich Paulus, one of the most capable German officers, from defeat however. ;) Sorry for being a little bit pathetic but sometimes such descriptions help to understand people better. Chuikov's troops paid a horrible butcher bill for that victory but they reversed the rails of war back to the West...
Concerning Apanassenko. That is not that I am really obsessed with him. In my opinion it is logistics that wins wars in the first place. And here Apanassenko is a King of War.;)
 
Concerning Apanassenko. That is not that I am really obsessed with him. In my opinion it is logistics that wins wars in the first place. And here Apanassenko is a King of War.;)
There's a distinction between superb military manager, so to speak, and brilliant battle general. I thought we were discussing latter group of people, and Apanassenko's premature death did not give him a chance to prove himself in this game.
 
Top