Hey panzergrenadier: Do me a favor and post your question on What IF? the one on Rommel being in the Ardennes Offensive, I think it will make an excellent what if? and I can go "wild" on answering it there [img]smile.gif[/img]

But to be fair with you here: I agree, I think Rommel would have been kept in command somewhere on the Western Front.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Before this turns into an endless back-and-forth that will never get us anywhere, let me back off and make some broader, more 'general' (lame pun fully intended) points.

It's apples and oranges to compare generals from different times and different countries, and to try to argue one was objectively, unequivocally, better than the other.

For instance, I'd say Guderian showed infinitely more brilliance on the operational-campaign level than Eisenhower... but reading Guderian's memoirs, the guy was extremely outspoken and not very diplomatic and I don't think he could have served the role Eisenhower did holding the allies together. Both these guys had some great qualities and some significant limitations, and they both did fine work in service of their respective countries.

I'm no fan of the Soviet system of government and I would never want to see it re-instituted. I lived in the CCCP for a while under that system and it was a bloody mess. Enormous powers were put in the hands of people who were utterly unfit to wield it competently or humanely. I never personally felt the full force of Soviet repression myself, but I personally know some people who did and I'm the last person in the world to defend, glorify, or apologize for the Stalinist system.

At the same time, I do admire the Russian people in many ways and I have a special admiration for the individuals who were able to accomplish great things despite the system they served under. I'd hate to see the names of Alexii Leonov, Dimitrii Shostakovich, Sergei Korilov -- and yes, Gregori Zhukov -- purged from the pages of history in a sweeping post-Soviet reactionary movement. These people are history, and they shouldn't be written off just because they served, suffered, and achieved what they did under a wicked oppressive regime.

Yes, Zhukov had numerical advantages at many points in the war... thought not always. His defense of Leningrad certainly ranks as a victory over roughly equal forces numerically; over far superior forces when both quality and quantity are considered.

Even late in the war, when Zhukov did enjoy numerical advantages, he still had major qualitative disadvantages. He couldn't do deep-penetration Blitzkrieg style offensives, because he lacked the quality subordinates all along the chain of command that Guderian had. He didn't have the secure, pervasive, real-time communication Guderian had. Hell, the vast majority of his tanks didn't even have radios in them. The same applies to force organization, force uniformity, and maybe most important, the training and experience levels of his troops. If Zhukov had tried to run a Guderian-style operation, relying on the initiative, communication, and flexibility on all levels of command that Guderian had, but attempting it using the resources he had, it would have been disastrous.

Despite the general impression of the Red Army, Zhukov wasn't just a 'charge them with endless waves of cannon-fodder infantry and drown them in our soldiers' blood' guy, either. After Tukachevsky was purged, Zhukov was the highest-ranking Soviet commander who fully embraced the concept of mobile combined arms operational warfare, and his greatest victories (Uran, Kursk, and Bagration) typify this. Yes, he had to adapt the ideal to suit the forces he had. That's what I meant in my original post by 'cutting his coat according to his cloth.' Zhukov was given an awful lot of very poor quality cloth, but he still managed to tailor a fully effective coat out of it.

There's been a great deal of high praise in this thread for Manstein, and I cannot argue with that. The man was brilliant. Sickle Stroke was the only offensive I know of in the whole war, where anybody managed a completely successful strategic campaign against superior enemy forces. Amazing guy, Manstein; great general.

But it was the very same Manstein, who, having given the Red Army three months' notice of his plans, went on to send his country's last best Panzer forces into Zhukov's trap. The Soviet victory at Kursk was not even remotely an example of crude mindless butchery on Zhukov's part: it was just the opposite. He suckered Manstein in, luring the German Panzer corps onto strong in-depth antitank defenses, waiting until the German flanks were exposed, and only then letting loose his own armour-mobile counteroffensive.

I know many will protest; 'That wasn't Manstein's fault! That was Hitler!'

Personally, I'm willing to give Manstein the benefit of the doubt on Kursk. He had the misfortune to be subordinate to a madman, and wound up paying the cost for that misfortune.

Zhukov had the same misfortune, and I'd argue he did a lot better job of coping with it. For what it's worth, Stalin the whole time was insisting on a pre-emptive Soviet offensive before Kursk. It would have been a huge mistake and Zhukov knew it, and he told Stalin 'no.' How many times did Eisenhower, Patton, or Montgomery face the prospects of trial torture and execution to stand up for what he believed to be the correct strategy? Say what you will, the man named Zhukov showed major cojones on multiple occasions.

I'm not saying he was perfect, or ideal, or even someone I'd want to work for. He was extremely savage and brutal at times, yes.

Still, you have to look at what he was given to work with. Many of his subordinates were incompetent toadying KPCC hacks, who were tirelessly pursuing their own personal safety at the cost of defending the country. Zhukov was a brutal tyrant to these kind of people, and in some cases, he actually got them to do their duty. Sometimes he was brutal to people who didn't deserve it.

But at the same time, Zhukov literally risked his own life on multiple occasions to defend those of his worthy subordinates who were forced into impossible situations and resulting losses by Stalin's dictates.

And that's the part I just can't dismiss in Zhukov: raw personal courage, and a fearless integrity in his purpose to get the Nazis out of his Rodina and then destroy them.

No allied commander faced anything like what Zhukov faced. Hell, even Hitler didn't do to his commanders what Stalin did to his.

Rommel actually was part of a plot to assassinate Hitler, and even so, he was still given the option of an easy way out -- no show trial, no torture, no persecution of your family; just take your poison and get a state funeral with full hero's honours.

None of Stalin's generals ever had that comparatively delightful option open to them. Even forget the fact, none of the Soviet Generals really were conspiring against Stalin in the first place, and still they got tried, tortured, and shot; going to their deaths with the knowledge that their wives and sons and daughters were going to wind up in Siberia, worked like slaves to the death.

In my own line of work, I have sometimes stuck my neck out in defense of people I thought were unjustly accused. And I've also stood up for policies - strategies and tactics, if you will - that were unpopular but correct. It isn't easy to do that, even under the relatively very benign circumstances I face.

I can't even imagine Zhukov's kind of courage. Nobody was ever going to have me arrested, tortured, and shot, and then go after my family too, just because I stood up for what I thought was right; right for the mission, right for my people.

Zhukov was decorated Hero of the Soviet Union, four times. Fully acknowledging the evil brutality of the Soviet political system, I'd say that might mean even more than being a hero of some humane, intelligent, compassionate nation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Otto:
I was just wondering why we hear of air commanders of every nation save for the USSR.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not certain on this point - if others know better, please correct me - but I believe the Soviet Air Force was too much divided into subordinate groups for each Army - 'Army' in Soviet force structure closer to Allied term Corps; a group of some relatively small number of divisions (even smaller than Allied corps). So the Soviet air commander was like the man commanding artillery for Patton, or logistics for Montgomery - not exactly household names.

There was no person like Air Marshal Dowding (Battle of Britain) who was personally personally responsible for a central role in the air war. And air war was not a big part of the Russo-German conflict anyway; not on the Allies' strategic scale. Soviet airmen did well in local tactical support, but there was no big Soviet strategic-level air campaign; offense or defense.

Now to think of it, I would have to put Dowding on the list of great WWII commanders.

He had figured out the strategy he needed, and he was clear in what would save his country. He privately expressed he was grateful when Goring began to bomb London instead of airfields: Goring could kill many civillians that way, and make many more quite miserable, but only by knocking out Britain's air defense could the Germans ultimately defeat Britain.

Dowding was also able to get his strategy implemented despite strong political pressure to the contrary. Lest anyone doubt the necessity of a general to play politics well so his strategy is implemented, just look at what happened to Westmoreland. Doenitz is another example. If Guderian had posessed this skill, there might still be Nazis running Germany (and Middle East, France, Poland, Czech Republic) today.

Much credit is given to the British radar, but many British commanders saw the same radar intercepts and advocated a losing strategy. Dowding was the one who knew how to use radar and defense coordination systems to stay alive, and out-last Goring's Luftwaffe.

Maybe this points to one important quality of the great wartime commander: ability to see the problem clearly and focus on winning conditions without getting distracted by irrelevant 'clutter' considerations.

Dear Alath: all I can say on your first posting is that I do agree with you on several points. My memory is very faulty so things will look out of place here.

I also want to say that I commend you for what you have personally seen. You have see the side of a system that we here can only imagine. Then again, I dont think we could imagine that kind of lifestyle: whrer Medical Doctors make about $10.00 a month--according to some documentaries I have see.

Back to ww2 and Manstein and Zhukov.

One thing that if you happen to see here on other threads in these forums, is that, I too, have defended Zhukov. I am well aware of the fact that he never lost a battle--against the Japaneese or Germans.

I know he was thought of as a tyrant, but do not think he could have been much different than he was for the simple fact that stalin was his superior, and would not allow it.

Apparently, Zhukovs harshness did do what it was supposed to do, and that was to win battles and untimately, the war.

True, Mansteins personality would not let him be a good candidate for the man in charge of all Axis forces, but he would be the ideal man in charge of the German forces--hands down.

Manstein was a great general as Zhukov was. Is it supposed to be Zhukovs fault that he had superior numbers of men and weapons, and which is a fair reason to say why he in fact won all his battles?

The man had to have some common sence in order to achieve what he did achieve, same goes for Manstein.

Manstein and Rommel, could have been one heck of a "team", as Zhukov and Chuikov, could have been.

Im losing some of my chances here for points as I cannot flashback to all of your posting.

What I am trying to say is that yeah, I agree with you on some points as I did with Panzergrenadier. You both are correct in what you say. There are just too many things to ponder on what was and what could have been.

I have a question for you? Who would you think would have been the best man in the top axis military post? and im not trying to ask this as a what if, but as a serious question.

You gave a VERY intelligent and well thought out posting, and we should get you opinion on this. Im definately interested in hearing from you.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Alath, the Soviet Airforces were divided into small suboordinate groups and which is one of the main reasons, that they were constantly being beat time and time again, and is also why there are so many German aces that have more than 50 kills up to Erich Hartmanns 352 kills.

Had the Soviets combined airforces as a bigger force earlier, they could have had an easier time in destroying the Germans.

Later on, the Soviets did have air divisions, air corps and air armies--they learned.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Don't give me too much credit for when I was in CCCP. I was just a young university student, in no position to make powerful enemies. Nobody would be frightened of me enough to wind me up in Siberia. Throw a snowball at me, maybe.

Even the people I met who had felt the sharp end of the Soviet system, this was the era of glasnost. They had been through much, maybe, but not like their mothers and fathers and grandparents.

To your other question, if I am Hitler, I make Guderian chief of staff with broad authority over all aspects: training, organization, armament, strategic planning. Manstein is my field man, plans the operations and he selects his own subordinates. Brauchitsch in a diplomatic role; working with my allies and liaisons, going to the parades and shaking the hands.

And then, I listen to these guys. They are smarter than I am.

Alath, good choices but I have to ask, why Brauchitsch? not that I have a problem with your choice of him, but want your reasons for it. By the way, he is one of the best choices I can think of for that post. [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

I just had to interject here:

anyone arguing about the role of the USA vs the USSR should read this article posted in our Archives by Eric Margolis here:
http://www.ww2n.com/archives/art-20010426.shtml

He wrote this article for a major Toronto Newspaper a few years ago. It is very interesting and enlightening. I'm not going to say what my opinion is, just read the article and tell me what you think.

__________________

WWII Forums Rogues Gallery - send in your photo!
Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates

Good article and well written and I agree that the Russians fought 3/4ths of the German Army.

What I disagree on is the FACT, that the western allies DID fight and destroy many German elite units, that not ALL the best Germans unite were at the Eastern Front.

I wonder what he considers Panzer Lehr?, Das Reich?, 12th SS Panzer? Divs just for quick example, trash Divisions? I hardy think so.

Another thing I strongly disagree with this report was not that the Russians did not destroy what this writer wrote, but for the fact that he was purposedly trying to make it seem as if the German Divisions destroyed in combat, were always portrayed as being all well equipped and always at full combat strength, with the best quality of men and materials that were once available. We know that most of these German Divisions were at best at maybe half-strength or less.

What this author implied was that these were all top notch soldiers instead of a growing number of units filled with children and old men.

Also, fails to mention that the Germans had been scratching the bottom of the replacement barrels, by also using sick men and men missing limbs, to try to help fill in the holes in their ranks.

Also fails to admit that the equipment was almost non-exhistant. Failing to mention that the Russiand did have an almost endless supply of materials thanks to the Western Allies. Thats why they had, the trains to ship the tanks quickly overland, and the trucks to make the Inf and Artillery more mobile and able to gain much ground at a faster rate.

At that time, the Germans were virtually out of gas. One needs gas to drive a supply truck, or a recon Halftrack or an Opel Blitz hauling an 88 into a position or a Panzer going into action.

Thanks to the WESTERN Allies sending so much stuff to Russia (Lend lease) which he apparently forgot to mention, including food, medicine, gas, oil, weapons, ammo, tires, aircraft, shoes, overcoats, money etc etc etc. Thanks to that, that helped the Russians maintain themselves and insured in victory. Without the help of America, Canada, England, India, France etc etc, I strongly believe the Germans could have fought the Russians to a standstill, a.k.a. Trench warfare like in ww1.

Im not downplaying what the Russians did accomplish, but as that write said, the record needs to be set straight, which I totally agree with but, it also needs to insure that all parties involved, need to get due recognition.

The Germans ran out of ways to supply freash trained and equipped troops, the Russians had enough to draw on. This writer also fails to mention that the Germans were starving, the Russians were not much better off-food wise but, could at least count on having something to eat daily (at this point of the war) instead of maybe hard black army bread that the Germans might be given once every 3 days or so.

Just my two pfennigs worth [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C.Evans:
Alath, good choices but I have to ask, why Brauchitsch? not that I have a problem with your choice of him, but want your reasons for it. By the way, he is one of the best choices I can think of for that post. [img]smile.gif[/img] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know that much about Brauchitsch. Did he do a postwar memoir?

From what I do know, I was thinking of his languages, his grasp of history and European culture, his diplomatic style. From Guderian I get the idea he was a cultured, well-mannered, principled kind of guy. For a military liaison/diplomatic type job, he could make a good impression on his country's allies, smooth ruffled feathers when necessary. My impression is he would be respectful and respected in dealing with the leaders of other countries.

I dont know anything on him post war but, I agree he was a good choice. He did do pretty well earlier but fell in disfavor with Hitler due to listening to creeps like Bormann, and Goebbles, whom Brauchitsch hated and never trusted.

I would have picked him too [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

oops...i posted a response to a post...posted by "Gibson" thinking it was directed to me. But it wasn't, so i deleted my post. Sorry for the mix up.

C. Evans, like you, I thought the article made some good over-all points, but I think the author exaggerated in some areas... stated his argument a little stronger perhaps than reality.

I admit I'm quibbling here, but I think his 850K number on the Germans' losses at Stalingrad is overstated. Most figures I've seen are in the 250-350K range. Maybe the 'inflation' is partly due to inclusion of Axis satellites' losses. Including German forces not actually in Stalingrad but in the whole area encircled by Operation Uran, it might go even higher, but 850,000 still seems a bit high.

And, I had the same thought as you about the 'elite forces' point. Definitely, many top German units were wiped out in the East. But the Western Allies did face some elite units also. I imagine that a tally of East vs. West deployment of Panzer and Waffen-SS units would still be heavily weighted against the Soviets, though.

You're right of course to point out the material aid of the West. Western sources have tended to exaggerate this, though. I think it was on the Wargamer site (or a link from there) that I saw a very detailed article, accounting for exactly what the West sent to CCCP and when, and what was actually received and how it was used. Much of what was sent never got there, or never got deployed... a classic 'your check is in the mail' scenario.

Both Keegan and Glantz have addressed this issue. Going from memory, the critical items they cited were food, trucks, felt overboots (made to Soviet specification in the USA for winter use), and an important raw material I don't remember... maybe aluminum?

Both these authors downplay the value of Western aid in the form of actual fighting gear... some, like the infamous Grant Tank (Soviet nickname: Grave-site of Seven Brothers), was inferior material the Allies didn't want anyway. Some of it was very unsuited for Russian conditions. The Soviets did like the Jeep, though, and Zhukov's staff plane was a C-47. The duce-and-a-half trucks were a huge contribution.

Back to the original point; I think the author of the article was reacting to an overall Western impression that we defeated the Germans and the Soviets played a minor role. He's right to say this is a very wrong-headed idea, and I think he's also right to say it is a very widespread idea.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Otto:
I just had to interject here:

anyone arguing about the role of the USA vs the USSR should read this article posted in our Archives by Eric Margolis here:
http://www.ww2n.com/archives/art-20010426.shtml

He wrote this article for a major Toronto Newspaper a few years ago. It is very interesting and enlightening. I'm not going to say what my opinion is, just read the article and tell me what you think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think i agree with that article for the most part.

Dear Alath, another one of your great postings, and I agree with what you say.

I have a VERY low opinion of Keegen because he is or seems, so anti-American, and is way too biased on his writings. He is as bad or worse than Americas new superstar of an author: Stephan Ambrose.

I, if I ever met Keegen, could easily argue him down on the aide we sent to Russia, for the simple fact that my father, then aged 18, was one of the many men who flew US Aircraft to Rusia for their lendlease of these weapons.

Something I have never seen mention of an any history book, is that we gave the Soviets, I dont know how many B-17 bombers (my dad having been part of a one of the crews that flew them to Soviet Airfields.

My Grandfather was a Merchant Marine Captain (you will see info on him posted here soon, and why its so special) who also ferried all kinds of raw war materials to Murmansk, and Archangel, if im not mistaken.

He transported anything from tires for GMC Transport trucks, to Tanks, to Aircobra fighters, to wheat, medicines, overshoes, oil, guns, etc etc.

Its my opinion that Keegen and Ambrose, dont know what the hect they are talking about. I also had 3 uncles in that war, and my grandmother serving during the war. She was in charge of a group of Wasps, and also served as an air raid warden.

I guess that im just trying to say that the author of that report, should do more research before spouting off. Lord knows, I do it all too often resultig in opening my mouth, inserting foot and leg into it.

We all know that the Soviets faced the bigger part of the German and Axis armies, but it should be mentioned that they would not have won the war, if not for all the help we gave them.

They were forced to move all or most of their surviving industry to or beyond the Urals. That would not have happened, had they been winning. We know that this was to get them to safety beyong the range of German Aircraft.

Had the Soviets not had our GMCs for transportation, they could not have had as many men to use as they needed, within a decent amount of time. The Germans most likely, could have just kept on chewing them up and spitting out their bones, for breakfast.

Had it not been for American vehicles, the soviets would have HAD to build more transport trucks, instead of T-34s and JS-1s.

Had it not been for the Aluminum we sent there, they could not have built as many aircraft as they did, or had the greater numbers available when they did.

We also sent them countless millions of all caliber of artillery shells. Had they not had the shells to fire from their fieldpieces, a good many attacks that did succeed, might have ended for the Soviets; in disaster.

It is beyond me to ever say the Soviets did not have more than their fair share of action, and did their share of fighting. We know a bit of what they had to endure and thats for sure but, it simply boils down to, without our help, they simply did not have the resources to win. I think they possibly could have developed a defense line (like the Siegfried Line--the Maginot Line--the Gustav Line, for examples). Without aide, thats the best I can see the Soviets being able to do, and im not downplaying their fighting abilities at all. If a soldier does not have anything to eat, he cannot fight for very long--can he? As the old saying goes: "A soldier travels on his stomach".

I totally agree with what the Soviets said about the Grant tanks, they WERE nothing but pieces of out-dated junk! One hit from a small caliber shell, would often pop out some of the rivits, and they would wound or kill the crews. Shermans (Ronsons--I remembered) were also used in Russia, and were also not liked. Lees were used there also, and were liked, despite their lack of armor protection and heavy weaponry. These were often used for scouting duties and small action support.

These were reliable, more manouverable, and were fast. Better than an armored car, but not as good as a medium tank. By the way, they only had crews of 5 men, no room for more.

If they had a crew of 7, two would have to permanently be stationed outside the tank, maybe as MG gunners perhapse?

I also agree with the assessment that the number figure foir German casualties at Stalingrad, were placed way too high, but could also be attributed to Soviet Propaganda. Now, in the fighting in that area and along the Stalingrad front, was estimated at being almost 1 million German and Axis losses. This includes Killed, Wounded, Missing, and Captured soldiers.

What amazes me is, that its almost never told that way, because they dont want the Germans to get credit where credit is due; and thats a bad shame.

Another thing which is a proven fact is, that the Soviets often shot German Officers after they surrendered. Look what happened to those thousands of Polish Officers shot and hap hazzardly buried in the Katyn forrest. Someone also bungled that sick "job". Then to later try to blame it on the Germans thats proposterous (spelling?)

I know a few Soviet ww2 vets, one even lives here in Corpus Christi. I also know many ww2 German vets too. I listen to what they say about eachother, and believe me, the Keegen and Ambrose type authors, have it wrong.

I will never spend one penny, on either authors books. James Lucas is another author, who lets his fantasies run wild at times, but I do actually like some of what he writes, even if sometimes it does read a bit like science fiction.

Sorry for my long tirade...

[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

My vote goes to Hitler - his bad decisions saved a lot of time that would otherwise have been spent fighting far better German commanders.

Chris Ray

I agree with Carl and Alath the author does seem to want to overemphasize the Russian war effort and downplay D-Day to The Bulge. He neglects to mention that Stalin was demanding for a second front since 1941 and pleading with FDR to get in the war before December 7 came around.

850,000 men lost at Stalngrad is outrageous. If the Germans had 850,000 men there in the first place they could have broken out and met with Mansteins offensive which reached to within 30-60 miles of the city.

The Germans took most of their veteran, understrength combat formations from the East and threw them into the Wacht am Rhein operation.

Allied strategic bombing was crippling the German war industry and delaying oil production in the vital Ploestie (sp?) oil fields with bombing raids there. Not to mention during the Sicily invasion that critical units, at the height of the fighting at Kursk, were taken away from the German forces fighting there, the most important military operation in the 20th century.

The USSR did carry the weight on their shoulders for most of the war, but without the Allies aid and Allied bombing, the war in the East would almost certainly have been lost.

__________________
'The "glorious" fight of the so-called partisans was nothing more then a mean, common murder.'
- Kurt Meyer, after his loyal comrade Heinz Schrott was killed by perfidious French partisans while wounded in a street.