Zhukov's tactics lacked imagination, and mastery. Compared to other Generals/field Marshalls during WW2, I have to ask, did he ever win a battle with a numerically inferior advantage in men or tanks?? as Rommel had in Africa?? Simmonds in the Scheldt??

Blitzkrieg or lightning war was not intended to smash an army in large confrontation as shown in France in 1940, and early into Barbarosa in june/july 1941...Advance scouts, many in sidecars sought ahead to locate a static army, direct the armour to by-pass and disrupt communication or withdrawl. This placed the military response on the shoulders of the leader whom commanded these mostly static defenses, and when left on their own, the prospect of re-supply, demoralization of troops having been surrounded or passed led many leaders to accept the passionate response and to surrender or come to terms with those whom had the advantage.

I am unsure if Zhukov, while commanding an army ever met the full brunt of an advancing army, or was sent to take control of the situation, once the advance had petered out, or a counter attack was planned. His great victory at Stalingrad has been debated by historians and buffs alike. The view of Stalingrad and the defeat was as much as Paulus fault as Zhukov's mastery. Had Paulus the foresight, or knowledge of an armour commander perhaps as von Manstein or Guderian had then he might have taken steps necessary to prevent the collapse of Stalingrad. Had he scene his armour was ineffective in Stalingrad, pulled them back, stocked, refueled he'd have been able to send or meet any threat which incompanied it. As it was he never did or had the ability to send or aid Zhukov's attack from the northern flank or keep a corridor open for Hoth's 4th panzer to reach.

this is only my view as i am sure if the attack by Zhukov had failed, Stalin would have found him more troops and weapons until Stalingrad was re-claimed or person sacrificed for mother Russia had turned the tide...

Thanks for the post!

Mhhh. Friedrich Paulus was the wrong man for those kind of situations, he was more a person who sat behind a desk, I'd rather seen Von Rundstedt or Guderian.

Stalin would have done MANY to defend Stalingrad, Millions would have gone there to re-claim it when this would've happened.

__________________

good point...Stalingrad would have been either a victory or defeat for the Soviets, but to abandon it even if the German 6th army had captured the west bank, even though this might have been scene as the decisive key is hard to fathom. Numerous historians succumb to the fact that had Moscow been captured, the Soviets would have been finished??? Napoleon had succeeded in doing this, and the capital, or czar Alexander moved his head or control to St Petersburg (Leningrad) ...Look at Holland, the Queen Willamina took refuge in Canada, and in Belgium the King eradicated to set up shop in the U.K. as did the King of Norway i believe. Would the Soviet Union had ever signed an armistice as did the French, and allow German control...will never be known, but to say Stalin would have said, ya, Moscow is captured, lets surrender is hard to believe...

bf109 Emil

Besides that, Stalin knew - or probably - knew Germany never could fully control (Soviet-Union) Russia. They are with too less to fully control Russia.

__________________

True, the lack of law or constitution of the third Reich reaching a thousand years was in trouble from the beginning...the Wiemar republic which handed the reigns to the Nazi's had a base or foundation for the existence of order or law/constitution to follow as did the US have as a base for theres. much less so for Britain as a defined set of rules, but times/tradition established their people or goals...without this bases the Third Reich lacking foundation to build on, was doomed from the start, as a political or lasting era in the sense of the word..