The Greatest Generals of World

[lemurian]

I am surprised that many mented Hitler, but no one mented Stalin who owned Hitler big time.

Are you kidding? Read about the spectacular mismanagement of the Red Army in 1941, specifically the battles of Uman and Kiev, mismanaged by Stalin's Cavalry buddy-Buddeny.

Stalin's purges killed off pretty much every talented officer. Voroshilov and Buddeny were the only marshals spared. Both proved to be poor leaders. The purges stifled any creativity and initiative in the red army.

One of the things that Stalin did O.K after the early disasters was to listen to his top generals Zhukov, Vasilevsky and the artillery chief(forgot his name)- the "team" that won the key battles of Moscow and Stalingrad. Even there, after the Battle of Moscow, Stalin wanted to take the initiative and drive out the Germans. He organized 3 offensives (at Leningrad, Ukraine and Crimea), which dissipated Red Army strength and paved the way for the German Caucasus drive. Lets get one thing straight- The Red Army won the war in spite of Stalin, not because of him.

 

[500]

Are you kidding? Read about the spectacular mismanagement of the Red Army in 1941, specifically the battles of Uman and Kiev, mismanaged by Stalin's Cavalry buddy-Buddeny.

Stalin's purges killed off pretty much every talented officer. Voroshilov and Buddeny were the only marshals spared. Both proved to be poor leaders. The purges stifled any creativity and initiative in the red army.

Tell me any top leader that was killed by Stalin? Only moron Tukhachecvsky. If Stalin killed every talented officer, then who were all those generals Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky, Vatunin, Yeremenko... who kicked Hitlers ***? Chief of staff before the war Zhukov, by the way.

Lets get one thing straight- The Red Army won the war in spite of Stalin, not because of him.

The main reason why Red Army won is that it Soviet Union produced 125 thousand tanks and self propelled artillery while Germans produced only 42 thousand, i.e. Soviets produced 3 times more!

Before Stalin came to power, Russia was rural undeveloped country. And this country produced 3 times more tanks than indusrtial Germany! More over, these were very high quality tanks.

 

[lemurian]

Tell me any top leader that was killed by Stalin? Only moron Tukhachecvsky. If Stalin killed every talented officer, then who were all those generals Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky, Vatunin, Yeremenko... who kicked Hitlers ***? Chief of staff before the war Zhukov, by the way.


The main reason why Red Army won is that it Soviet Union produced 125 thousand tanks and self propelled artillery while Germans produced only 42 thousand, i.e. Soviets produced 3 times more!

Before Stalin came to power, Russia was rural undeveloped country. And this country produced 3 times more tanks than indusrtial Germany! More over, these were very high quality tanks.

The fact remains that Stalin did nothing to ready the Red Army in 1941. Do you know there was an war game exercise conducted in the summer of 1941 between red forces led by Timoshenko(representing Red Army) and blue forces led by Zhukov (Representing Germans)? Zhukov's forces won decisively.. Yet Stalin did nothing.

At the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, there are reports of commanders on the radio saying over and over again- "We are being fired upon. What shall we do?" What a pathetic moment for the largest army in the world. .

In the aftermath of the early disasters, Stalin almost went nuts. There were statements like inviting a British expeditionary force via Persia to join in the defence of Ukraine. Or saying that "what Lenin fought for, we have lost forever"

Stalin's five year plans achieved ruthless industrialization at the cost of massive agricultural discontent. IF Germans had given a hint of encouragement to the local populations instead of SS death squads, there would have been a very different war.

But as i already stated, Stalin learned from his mistakes and learned to trust his generals. Hitler on the other hand, learnt different lessons. In the aftermath of the Moscow counter offensive, the German generals demanded a withdrawal. Rundstedt even proposed a withdrawal back to Poland. But Hitler presented his concept of "Igelstellen"- fortified field positions with each balancing the other out.. The front stabilised, and Hitler's faith in his generals began to wane.

Since you dismissed Tukachevsky as a moron, I have nothing more to say on the matter. You might think Guderian was a moron too. That apart Stalin was one of the defining personalities of the last century. He may have been an idiot, but he won a war..

 

[500]

The fact remains that Stalin did nothing to ready the Red Army in 1941.

In 1941 Red Army was best armed army in the world + USSR had mighty industry + USSR achieved support of UK and USA.

Do you know there was an war game exercise conducted in the summer of 1941 between red forces led by Timoshenko(representing Red Army) and blue forces led by Zhukov (Representing Germans)?

First of all there were two games. First game Zukov played Germans who defended Prussia while Pavlov led Soviets who were attacking. In second game Zukov played Siviet who were attacking from Ukraine.

Secondly these games happened in January 1941.

Zhukov's forces won decisively.. Yet Stalin did nothing.

As result of these games Zhukov was apointed a chief of staff.

At the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, there are reports of commanders on the radio saying over and over again- "We are being fired upon. What shall we do?" What a pathetic moment for the largest army in the world. .

Brits and Frenchs also suffered pathetic defeat.

In the aftermath of the early disasters, Stalin almost went nuts.

Myth.

Stalin's five year plans achieved ruthless industrialization at the cost of massive agricultural discontent.

As result rural Russia prouced 3 times more tanks than industrial Germany.

IF Germans had given a hint of encouragement to the local populations instead of SS death squads, there would have been a very different war.

Very possible. That only proves my point that Hitler was failure compare to Stalin.

But as i already stated, Stalin learned from his mistakes and learned to trust his generals. Hitler on the other hand, learnt different lessons. In the aftermath of the Moscow counter offensive, the German generals demanded a withdrawal. Rundstedt even proposed a withdrawal back to Poland. But Hitler presented his concept of "Igelstellen"- fortified field positions with each balancing the other out.. The front stabilised, and Hitler's faith in his generals began to wane.

Since you dismissed Tukachevsky as a moron, I have nothing more to say on the matter.

Tukhachevsky was only good supresisng poeaant revolts, against Polish army he failed miserably.

That apart Stalin was one of the defining personalities of the last century. He may have been an idiot, but he won a war..

Stalin won the larest war in human history. Thats fact. Stalin is better general than Hitler.

I am not fan of Stalin at all, I consider him a criminal. But mayb great generals were ruthless criminals: Julius Ceasar, Atilla, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane..

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Stalin is a great General, are you people out of your mind, You people just insulted the great soviet military minds with that statement

IF Germans had given a hint of encouragement to the local populations instead of SS death squads, there would have been a very different war.

EXACTLY, Russkis were seriously contented & angry at Stalin & his genocidal policies & initially German troops were welcomed as liberators but German failed to win hearts & minds of Russian people

 

[Icarus]

Stalin was using Human Wave attacks in Stalingrad in WWII ! It was an outdated tactic even by WWI standards.
A general yes, an able general not in the least.

 

[lemurian]

O.K., I can't multi-quote everything you have written so here is a point wise reply-

1. Zhukov's performance at Khalkin Gol visibly impressed Stalin.That apart, in that battle Zhukov used Tanks rather wastefully. Yet his taste for mobile warfare impressed Stalin. Secondly you also forget that Zhukov suggested a pre-emptive strike on German Positions in Poland before Barbarossa. That would simply have been disastrous. Thirdly, Zhukov was hardly the war winning hero that you suggest he is. David Glantz has written an extensive account of Zhukov's failure during Operation Mars. Rzhev was called the meat grinder for the sheer amount of human lives it cost. Fortunately for Zhukov, The Battle of Stalingrad was successful. Within the Red Army, Zhukov was was popular with the lower ranks because of his propensity to punish the big commanders (firing squad at times, penal battalion on others)

2. Since you mentioned Pavlov, that idiot's observations about the Spanish Civ War led to the disbanding of the Red army mechanized formations. Later when the Red Army realised the potency of armoured formations after the Battle of France , there was a hasty attempt at reorganisation. but it was already too late..

3. The fact of the matter is Stalin deliberately surrounded himself with idiots who wouldn't be a threat to his authority. He gave Budenny nearly a million men for the battle of Kiev. It was expected that Budenny would at least give a good fight. That proved an elusive hope.

4. Stalin was moody for this weeks following Barbarossa- this is on record. And yes there was an offer to the British to help defend Ukraine. I have read reports of soldiers cut off in pockets during the battle of Uman, miserable in their foxholes, with the voice of Stalin almost magically enhanced by loudspeakers, reading them their rights under the Soviet Constitution..

5. We would agree to disagree on Tukachevsky. He was a very showy, high profile individual. But, he formulated a real plan for the defense of the Soviet Union, which is a monumental undertaking. The whole country was split into two by the Pripyet Marshes. Tukachevsky's solution was to have a light screen around Leningrad, with the bulk of mobile forces in the south to outflank any invader. It was a sound plan, might have worked. But with new additions in eastern poland, baltics and Bessarabia, Stalin moved his troops everywhere. The result was, at least initially, disaster.

 

[lemurian]

Stalin is a great General, are you people out of your mind, You people just insulted the great soviet military minds with that statement

Oh yeah? according to who, exactly? The Soviets may have won the war due to many reasons, the Americans may say lend-lease, the commies may say peasants and workers of the free world, the nazis may say it was the great Jewish regime in Kremlin.. The Soviets could not come close to the military efficiency of the Germans until Kursk. It was always a 3:1 ratio, A Soviet Corps will always be the equivalent of a German division. Much of that can be blamed on Stalin..

 

[500]

Thirdly, Zhukov was hardly the war winning hero that you suggest he is.

You brough Zhukov first, claiming that he won war games and Stalin did not do anything. Stalin did, he appointed him a chief of staff. Alas it did not prevent disaster of 1941, on the other hand Rd Army did not collapse like French army.

2. Since you mentioned Pavlov, that idiot's observations about the Spanish Civ War led to the disbanding of the Red army mechanized formations. Later when the Red Army realised the potency of armoured formations after the Battle of France , there was a hasty attempt at reorganisation. but it was already too late..

Disbanding mechanized formations? Where from u got that idea? In 1941 Soviets had more tank and mechanized divizions than all other armies combined.

3. The fact of the matter is Stalin deliberately surrounded himself with idiots who wouldn't be a threat to his authority. He gave Budenny nearly a million men for the battle of Kiev. It was expected that Budenny would at least give a good fight. That proved an elusive hope.

Budenny actually supported withdrawal of forces from Kiyev. Also in order to surround Kiyev Germans forced to change their initial plan and sent Guderian to South. As result Moscow was saved.

 

[500]

It was always a 3:1 ratio

It was not. In terms of men power it was about 1.3:1. In terms of tanks and planes yes, almost always it was 3:1, because Soviets produced 3 times more weapons than Germans.

 

[lemurian]

Disbanding mechanized formations? Where from u got that idea? In 1941 Soviets had more tank and mechanized divizions than all other armies combined.

Post- Khalkin gol, the Red Army proceeded to disband the seven mechanised corps that existed, instead divvying it up for infantry support. This was based on the observations of Pavlov, the Red Army tank expert. Stalin ignored Zhukov's and Shaposhnikov's objections in this matter.

Also in order to surround Kiyev Germans forced to change their initial plan and sent Guderian to South. As result Moscow was saved.

Hardly, the attack on Moscow faltered because of the delay in the lotzen decision. The decision itself was a correct one. At this point in the campaign it was dangerous to have that huge force on the south western flank. It had to be eliminated. Dont forget that the objective of Barbarossa was the encirclement and destruction of standing armies in the field. To say that Stalin had cleverly sacrificed the Kiev garrison to buy time for Moscow is stretching logic a bit far.

Anyway this discussion going way offtopic.

@ topic
1. Alexander the great- for his head crunching ambition
2. Hannibal- Brilliant organization
3. King Leonidas

 

[Frankenstein]

First one was Cyrus the great then Alexander the great

 

[Kambojaric]

@ topic
1. Alexander the great- for his head crunching ambition
2. Hannibal- Brilliant organization
3. King Leonidas

Leonides? As far as i can see he was just a brave dude, but i wouldnt put him in the list of great generals. The previous two i completly agree with. Personally Hannibal for me is the king of generals. Cannae was a master piece.

 

[Mehmet]

I would have to say Ataturk but not because I am a Turk. He was the only undefeated commander of world war 1, destroyed the British invincibility myth, arguably invented the Blitz tactic by driving the Greeks from Ankara to Izmir in only 3 weeks (many hundreds of km) at the great Turkish counter offensive, turned the Russians, French, British, Greeks and Italians against each other through brilliant political maneuvering.

He was also a great statesman and modernized the Turkish people and brought about the secular nation of modern Turkey.

Sultan Mehmet II would also be a great general for making his ships "walk" on land, attacking the Byzantine navy at sunrise so as to blind the Byzantines to the Ottoman approach. Many Ottoman generals and admirals also should be considered for top military commander for their brilliant tactics as well as utilizing in mass innovations such as light artillery.

I dont consider our prophet PBUH to be a military general since in all his life as a prophet the battles he won in the name of Allah contribute such a small portion of his achievements that it is almost insignificant. Our prophet PBUH work through the examples of wisdom and knowledge he gave us is far more important, our prophet PBUH is more in line as the most influential and important person of all time then for best military general, indeed time magazine has already selected our prophet PBUH as the most influential and important person in history.

Finally dictators like Stalin who murdered vast numbers of his own people and Hitler who killed not only innocent civilians but also was an incompetent general at best were the most awful of generals. Stalin won battles because of the vast resources the Soviet Union was able to mobilize against NAZI Germany and NAZI Germany won many battles because of a technological advantage and the blitzkrieg tactics which Hitler did not invent.

 

[Srinivas]

I would have to say Ataturk but not because I am a Turk. He was the only undefeated commander of world war 1, destroyed the British invincibility myth, arguably invented the Blitz tactic by driving the Greeks from Ankara to Izmir in only 3 weeks (many hundreds of km) at the great Turkish counter offensive, turned the Russians, French, British, Greeks and Italians against each other through brilliant political maneuvering.

He was also a great statesman and modernized the Turkish people and brought about the secular nation of modern Turkey.

Sultan Mehmet II would also be a great general for making his ships "walk" on land, attacking the Byzantine navy at sunrise so as to blind the Byzantines to the Ottoman approach. Many Ottoman generals and admirals also should be considered for top military commander for their brilliant tactics as well as utilizing in mass innovations such as light artillery.

I dont consider our prophet PBUH to be a military general since in all his life as a prophet the battles he won in the name of Allah contribute such a small portion of his achievements that it is almost insignificant. Our prophet PBUH work through the examples of wisdom and knowledge he gave us is far more important, our prophet PBUH is more in line as the most influential and important person of all time then for best military general, indeed time magazine has already selected our prophet PBUH as the most influential and important person in history.

Finally dictators like Stalin who murdered vast numbers of his own people and Hitler who killed not only innocent civilians but also was an incompetent general at best were the most awful of generals. Stalin won battles because of the vast resources the Soviet Union was able to mobilize against NAZI Germany and NAZI Germany won many battles because of a technological advantage and the blitzkrieg tactics which Hitler did not invent.

Buddy what about the atrocities and genocides done by Ottoman empire during world war 1. They can be compared to the mass murders done by Nazis and Stalin.