Here is something I found recently about Glantz and his books, it seems to me, he is only a little more reliable than Suvorov is:

Jean2005


You menton yourself earlier that Zhukov was responsible for Kiev´s loss? What is your source on that?

See your text earlier:

"Maybe he warned before Kiev, maybe not, but true is, that he is responsible for that (lost) battle."

To me it seems it was Stalin, again.

September 9, 1941

Marshal Budyenny, commanding an Army in the Kiev area, makes his first request to abandon Keiv. Stalin denies the request.

September 11, 1941

General Budyenny makes his second appeal to Stalin to withdraw from the Kiev area. This time the the request was co-signed by the ranking commissar, Nikita Krushchev. Budyenny was sacked within hours. Only 60 miles separated the jaws of the great German encirclement at Kiev.

September 16, 1941

The Kiev pocket begins to collapse as Soviet forces begin to withdraw. General Timoshenko, commander of the Soviet High Command (STAVKA), authorizes the withdrawal. However, Stalin would not confirm the orders for 48 critical hours.

September 17, 1941

The withdrawal from the Kiev pocket is finally approved by Stalin, but it is far too late. General Kirponos, commander of the forces in Kiev, would share the fate of many of his soldiers when his column, attempting to withdraw was ambushed and he was cut down. In the end, only 15,000 would escape the encirclement. This was a grave blow to the Red Army.


http://www.bartcop.com/arc4109.htm
--------------

On the other hand on the other major losses on the Ostfront earlier for the Red Army. If you read "Stalin´s folly" by by Constantine Pleshakov it gives rather a good picture, which I could believe, that very soon into the Barbarossa Stalin and Stavka realized the troops close to border were necessary to sacrifice in order to be able to create a new defensive line deep into USSR soil. New troops were created and sent there while it was hoped the troops sacrficed could buy the time for the Red Army to prepare for the Germans. However the Germans were much faster than hoped for and their tactics at the time better. And Zhukov had to fight Stalin all the time with making decisions on the tactics, the best example still being the major winter attack that Stalin wanted to take place all through the front and not as a concentrated attack.

------------

Also I find the reaction for Glantz´s book a bit stupid. It must be only the name that shocks people. If all in all the book tells the story where AGC was almost ripped off its pedestal I´d say it was a great Red Army story even if the losses were huge. If the name was something like " Zhukov the almost-destroyer of the AGC and Model" we would get a very different reaction. I say I find it funny that some book reviews on the book in Amazon claim that he is troubled by how pro-Soviet Glantz is in his book. And I say that if you have read the book you agree. And i agree. And it is a great book on how close the Red Army was to win the war in Dec 1942! You either accept the losses or not. But that´s how Zhukov played his game.

__________________

Thanks for such a huge response. Now I have lots to think about again.
But why you quote some of my text and answer to something different? Your answer shows to me this: it was Budyenny (and Timoshenko, but later), who requested to withdraw from Kiev and not Zhukov, so Zhukov lied in his memoires. Correct me, if I am wrong.
I wrote he was responsible for battle of Kiev, its true, but it was meaned he was responsible for creating of conditions, which led to that battle. There were some major battles in the summer of the year 1941 and many futile soviet attacks (i.e. Yelnia?), whose depleted strategic reserves of RA and at the end that led to possibility to free Guderians 2nd panzer group for attack and advance to Konotop and further and thus to make one half of the ring around Kiev. But I have to admit I do not know much about that, because I just started to search about that and I do not know what of this is true or not true.

Today I was thinking about another older reply here, those one about Stalin and his authority above all orders and commanders and I found something strange. If some operation was success. than Zhukov proudly claims: It was my work. If it was not success, than it was Stalin, who was responsible for that, because he could overrule any order or leader. The only conclusion, that appears to me is, that if Stalin realy overruled all, those winned battles are his credit, and those lost naturally too and Zhukov then lies about his claims to win something. And if Stalin did not overruled everything, than Zhukov lies again, this time about those lost battles.
/well, last nine lines took me at least half an hour to write and I hope someone will understand this, as for myself it looks too complicated in English. In Czech its easy and short to say, however/

May I ask as what source other then Suvoruv's you are using to claim all of this about Zhukov?

Also, once again I must point out that everything which you are claiming about Zhukov seems only an opinion and not backed by fact. Until you provide a source other then Suvoruv for any actual events taking place during WW2, im afraid that many in this forum will not take you seriously.


This from: The Russian Battlefield - The Failed Historian As our very own Za has wisely pointed out

I would like to begin by stressing that this article was meant as a general survey of Rezun’s failings as a historian, and I by no means seek to claim sole authorship of all the included critiques. Any external sources used are cited in the text itself, and also in the bibliography section at the end of the piece. The article itself was written back in the year 2000, and numerous works demonstrating the true “value” of Rezun’s writings have been published since. So many, in fact, that there is now little need to continue arguing the merits of Rezun’s thesis; in fact, to publicly support Rezun’s theories has become a sign of ignorance

Best regards

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

What exactly do you mean? If is it only my reply just above, there I took your own words about Stalins and Zhukovs authority and Zhukovs claims of victories and how he was trying to hide his defeats. Where I used Suvorov as a source?
Another thing is that: "The article itself was written back in the year 2000".
But Suvorovs books about Zhukov are from the year 2002 and 2005, so I dont uderstand, how should someone to rewiew something that by that time does not exist.
But this is not matter, however. Except one mistake (and I am sorry for this) I did not and do not use Suvorov as a source. Sometimes I used him only as some kind of inspiration, where could be something interesting to look at. How many times I must to repeat this? I am sitting hours and hours above books or (mostly) internet and I am trying to search datas from any source I should to aquire and if I put them here, even if it is with some link or such as, most answers are only: this is not true. And finally I made the mistake, I used Suvorovs name once and what happend? Seems to me like if someone is waiting for it and: Alas! Suvorovs name is here! Game over, try again...
Its funny, when your sorce confirm my words. I.e.here: is, that Zhukov took command in Leningrad in September 14 and the order for germans troops to not capture Leningrad came in Sep. 12. So how he could to be the savior of Leningrad? He could not stop Germans, as they stop themselves just obeying the order from Hitler. He did not broke through blocade, so about 1 milion of people died. Yes, maybe he had some important part in following deffense here, but definitely he is not the savior of Leningrad. (and probably he is not the savior of Moscow as well, but I am not enough far with searching about that, so if you have some links, please put them here...)
Afternoon I will try to borrow his memoires again and we will see, what he claimes there exactly, not only what is on the web.
And once again I must to say, it does not matter to me, whatever Suvorov writes, I only want to know everything possible about Zhukov and about Barbarossa operation. (This way I found this forum, btw.. I was searching about Barbarossa and...what is it? Some forum? Looks interesting, and I am not a member of any English-speaking forum yet, maybe I will find some informations here, lets register and I will see...)

Once again.

It seems to me Jean that you may be simplifying too much. Zhukov was after all only a man. He was given the task of defending Leningrad and he did. Defenses were put in place new, units were conscripted and counterattacks were ordered by him in order to grind the Germans down and they did! Von Leeb even stated this in his letter to Hitler after which Hitler issued the order to stop the attack on Leningrad and to just bomb it and starve it into submission. This order came NOT on the 12 of sept. but on the 22nd. On the 12th was the order given only given to Guderians mechanzed units as they were moved for the assualt on Moscow.

Also liberating Leningrad was not an easy task as hundreds of thousands of Germans were dug in. Around 300,000 at a time. ( Also there were the Fins in the North and other allies )
The Russian were also a very different fighting force in 1941 then they were in 1943. The Red Army was simply incapable of liberating the city so quick.

Operation Barbarossa: Army Group North, part 2

Defending Moscow was more important then liberating Leningrad. To say that Zhukov let 1 million people starve is quite shallow.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Just a while ago saw in a book on Norwegian Waffen-SS volunteers a map of the lines around Leningrad. The distance between the troops from the north and south of the axis forces behind Leningrad was only some 20 kilometers apart in autumn 1941 so I would not stay and wait for something to happen if I was a Soviet commander...

__________________

To Kai-Petri: I do not understand well?
To Sloniksp: I know, that Zhukov was only a man (however his quality is still a question for me, too many counterargumets on both sides) , but he claims to be not only a man and this is that, what makes me curious...
Even if this order of Sep. 12th was only to move Guderians corps away, it made the ocupation of Leningrad not possible. The remainig forces lacks enough strenght and mobility to repel soviet counterattacks, if they would to continue to advance. But you are right, the informations I gave here were not as correct, as I thought and I am sorra for that.
300,000 looks much better, than those 700,000+ from Wiki, dont you think? I lack for some better specification of which units are figured to those around Leningrad and which are not. But with all those Finnish and other soldiers it is possible to reach those 300,000, even with enormous level of attrition of German units in autumn 41 (some units, mostly the armoured ones were about 50% of their original strenght and sometimes even lower). I. e. 1st Panzer division had at Aug. 16th only 18 Pz-II, 20 Pz-III and 6 Pz-IV, but I have this in my notes without source, so I dont know, if it is true.

Jean,

the German troops were separated from the Finnish troops by some 20 kilometers which is not much.

__________________

Jean it may be easy to make such a statement after the events occured. The Germans at the time really had no idea as to how many Russians were in the city and how fanatically they would fight to make sure that it would not fall. I remember that I have stated in the past ( another thread ) as to how my father told me that when in St. Petersburg ( then Leningrad ) he stumbled upon some German veterans who were there just to take a glimpse of the city they were once besieging. They simply could not figure out how it did not fall.

Again all of this was possible thanks to the defences and counter attacks and the immediate conscription of new units drawn up by Zhukov who replaced Veroshilov as he failed to accomplish this.
No apologies needed friend Oh and I understand you just fine ( most of the time at least ) Not to worry, several more months here and you will be fluent!

Actually those figures did not include the Finns ( Kai can provide more specifics then me on this ) The 725,000 number like you said would probably include the reinforcements and rotation of units. Then again a luxury which the Citizens at Leningrad did not have.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Slava is correct, jean, you keep on typing. If we can't understand you. we'll ask you.

Thanks guys, for keeping it civil.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

I will try to find something about those "units conscripted by Zhukov" and about those ones conscripted before him. It should to be interesting, I think, but now, there is some other nameless battle, that attracts my attention much more, than Leningrad does. It is tank battle between Rowno and Dubno, but I don't know much more about it. It started probably at June, 23th, and ended at June, 27th (the year 1941, of course). Great numbers of Soviet tanks were destroyed there, but I don't (look! I just discovered this apostrophe ' thing!!) know even which corps/armies/divisions fought there, can someone help me? (There will be a book about this battle, it is planned to be released in Czech Republic in about one year, but just now there is nothing about it anywhere I was trying to search)

Jean,

try to get " Stalin´s folly" by Constantine Pleshakov. I think the book has quite good information on the reasons why things went the way they did for the Red Army. Of course not everyone agrees but I found the book very good.

For instance

" Minsk area June 24-26

the counteroffensives ordered by Stalin and supported by his yes men were not simply a failure, they were an utter catastrophe. The Tenth Army was now surrounded at Belostok, the Third had virtually disappeared , and the Fourth had suffered staggering casualties and had been forced to withdraw. The gap between the Western and Northwestern Fronts had grown to 60 miles. The opening contained the highway to Minsk, and German tanks were now rolling speedily along it, approaching the Byelorussian capital.The frontier battle had been lost.

....

Moscow´s response was equally farcical.Timoshenko magnanimously allowed Pavlov to evacuate the units, but the troops were to relocate not to Minsk but to the Lida-Slonim line, 80 miles west of the city. Timoshenko did not know that on June 25 the Red Army was already leaving Slonim, having been overwhelmed by the pincer strike of Guderian and Hoth.However, he should have admitted tha the Third and the Tenth Army had by then practically ceased to exist. Instead, the people´s commissar of defence was sending ghost armies to nonexistent trenches.

The Western Front has just one Army unscathed by fighting-the Thirteenth, located in the rear, at Moghiley.The defenders of Minsk eagerly awaited its arrival. ( The Thirteenth Army, commanded by General Peter Filatov, was barely six weeks old. When the war started, it was still being formed....) "

__________________

I'll try to find that book, but it is not easy here, in Czech Republic.
(btw., are there in that "Stalin's folly" some numbers? I mean division numbers and figures about their mannpower and equipment, especialy the tanks?)
A little off-topic: Right now I'm reading some very strange book about Barbarossa. It's name is "Thunder on the Dnepr" from Bryan Fugate and Lev Dvoreckij and I must to say, I have never ever seen such great pile of nonsenses, as is there. According to authors, all of those great defeats of Soviets up to winter of the year 1941 were purposely prepared by Zhukov and, but only partially, by Stalin and Timoshenko to lead Germans to the depth of Russia, where they will be more vulnerable etc.... Oh, man, if you can, try to borrow copy of this fairy tale, just for fun, but never, never spend your money for it. I have to say, that the last two books from Suvorov (from the years of 2002 and 2005) were much better (if possible, of course), than this Thunder... Interesting is, that authors are often using the very same affairs or doings like Suvorov, but they are turning them to contradictory evidence, often by concealment of some facts etc...

Zhukov's memoirs seem accurate to me. When I was doing research on Operation Uranus other accurate historians like Erickson seemed to agree with Zhukov. He also admitted to his mistakes in operation bagration. David Glantz is also a good historians; however, I find that he glorifies a bit.

I am reading Zhukov's Memories and Thoughts right now, so I'll see whatever is true or not as true. Now seems to me, Zhukov glorifies a bit too, but only himself. If I will find something not accurate, I'll bring it here with some explanation, why I suppose it could not to happen like Zhukov (or someone, who wrote his book) wrote.

I've yet to read a memoir or autobiography of a general that didn't glorify himself.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

What! You mean Manstein glorifies himself too !?!?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler