How would you rate Zhukov?

Lee-Sensei

Ad Honorem
Aug 2012
2,122
I believe more people died on the Eastern Front in World War I than in the West.
You seem to be correct, although the Western Front was still the primary front. Most of the Central powers casualties on the Eastern Front were Austro-Hungarian (around 4.4 million). The Germans suffered around 1.5 million casualties on the Eastern Front and 5.5 million casualties on the Western Front during WW1.
 

MG1962a

Ad Honorem
Mar 2019
2,193
Kansas
But the Russian losses were much greater. I just don't remember if they combined with CP losses add up to more than in the West. I think yes, I'll check.
Well the Russians lost about 1.8 million. Which is on par with French losses in the West. So it really comes down to where the bulk of Germans and Austrians were killed
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,767
Republika Srpska
Well the Russians lost about 1.8 million. Which is on par with French losses in the West. So it really comes down to where the bulk of Germans and Austrians were killed
Oh you're right. I would then say the Austrians are the decider since many more Germans died in the West.
 
Dec 2013
331
Arkansas
On a scale of 10. I have mixed feelings about him. On one hand, he managed massive armies and that surely takes a good deal of skill given the logistics involved. On the other hand, he generally had a large advantage in manpower, often in resources and equipment and suffered heavier casualties. The Soviet Union of the 7 major industrial powers of WW2 was uniquely capable of accepting heavy losses since 5ey didn’t need to worry about re-elections and they had the necessary population.
I think your final sentence is a bit of a misstatement. Just because a nation doesn't have elections does not mean it can ignore massive numbers of fatalities. Suffer too heavy fatalities and you run the risk of your own military saying "the hell with it, if we're going to die might as well kill the idiots who are leading us to ruin".

On the other hand simply being a democracy does not make a nation necessarily sensitive to fatalities. Several of the allies nations in World War One sent their troops to die in staggering numbers at the fronts despite having elections.
 

Lee-Sensei

Ad Honorem
Aug 2012
2,122
I think your final sentence is a bit of a misstatement. Just because a nation doesn't have elections does not mean it can ignore massive numbers of fatalities. Suffer too heavy fatalities and you run the risk of your own military saying "the hell with it, if we're going to die might as well kill the idiots who are leading us to ruin".

On the other hand simply being a democracy does not make a nation necessarily sensitive to fatalities. Several of the allies nations in World War One sent their troops to die in staggering numbers at the fronts despite having elections.
1) Not if the military leadership is equally ruthless and people are afraid to contradict the political leader after decades of repression.

2) That’s true to an extent, but Churchill wanted the Russians to be bled white fighting the Germans.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,357
Sydney
@ KurwaGoy
Yes Cherniakovski and Rokossovski were outstanding , the last being the only general to openly oppose Stalin during a conference
Koniev was very good , Bagramian too ,
a mention of Chuikov who held Stalingrad with his teeth
a lot of the staff work was made by Vasilievsky , with Zhukov they formed a smooth A team

the Soviet army was totally reforged after the 1941 disasters , incidentally Stalin had very few general shot , all of them in the first few months
afterward he increasingly let them run the battles , just keeping a sharp eyes on the operations

by the time the first US soldier , Edward V. Loustalot , died in the ETO during the Dieppe raid , the Wehrmacht had toted more than one millions permanent losses dead , wounded, prisoner and incapacitated

the losses trend was equivalent to about two divisions each month
total German losses for the Eastern front was above 2 millions not counting the wounded casualties
precise accounting is very tricky but the figure of more than 80% losses were on the Eastern front
this was the best units and most experienced personnel who died in the early part of the war
by 1944 , the German troops had been largely broken
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,357
Sydney
@ Tulius , .........trolling or do you have some insight to share ?

if the later I would certainly be keen for you to share it
 
May 2019
205
Northern and Western hemispheres
Don't forget about Khalkin Gol - a double envelopment that changed the course of the war.
I've heard of that before. It was some payback for losing to the Japanese in 1905. How did it change the course of the war though?