Marshal Zhukov: Master Tactician or Hot-headed and impatient?

Question

Background Info:

Although many people cannot even name a WWII Soviet General, Marshall Zhukov, "Hero of the Union" was the Patton, Rommel and Montgomery of the Soviets. Zhukov was responsible in part for the defense of Moscow, and for the sacking of Berlin, to name two.

He took the fewest of the overwhelming Soviet casualties, and accomplished the most heroic victories by Stalins standards.

His tactics were unique and defined the Russian stereotypical strategist. However, many Historians of WWII, and some of Zhukovs' comrades, claim him a weak leader, and his strategies poor, or not his own.

Today, three general standpoints on Zhukov are around. The during-WWII Soviet Opnion, that he was a hero and a genius, the during-WWII Allied opinio nthat he was a typical loyal Soviet commander (although Eisenhower commended him) and the modern opinion that he was probably not so great a military mind, and was glorified, although he did have a FEW accomplishments.

What do you think?

Answer 1

I think you summarized him very well. I'm not sure about the 'hot-headed' part, but he was one of the Soviet generals who felt free to contradict Stalin over military doctrine and strategy. That Stalin accepted such criticism shows the regard he had for Zhukov. I believe he was an able general, more interested in attack rather than defense, who in later years was able to inflate somewhat his overall military accomplishments during WWII. Of all his campaigns, the Battle of Kursk and the subsequent Operation Bagration were, in my estimation, his greatest achievements. Both contained sound military strategy and foresight in seeing that the Wehrmacht just could not holp up to the pressure exerted by the Soviet army after failing in their own previous offensives. I admire Zhukov myself for he had an overall understanding of grand strategy as well as a tactical battle ability.

Answer 2

All of the above. His greatest "weakness" was that he was becoming a thorn in the side of Stalin, who started diverting "sure wins" away from Zhukov because Zhukov was becoming so popular with the Soviet masses.
If anything, although he did, especially in the beginning. adhere to the stereotypical Soviet battle plan - put forth by Stalin of course - as the Russians were clearly on their way to victory and he had established his bona fides, he actually started to "think outside the box" and defied Stalin from time to time - successfully.
Stalin was stuck and couldn't very well have him shot because he WAS so popular. He was also sorely in need of a good dentist!

Answer 3

I agree that Marshal Zhukov was a very skilled general. He showed in the Far East and in the battles against Germany that he was a general who wins battles. Certainly his method of bringing out the best in his subordinates was a bit harsh (fear of the firing squad), but he used his resources intelligently and competently (even when he seemed wasteful, like Grant he knew that he could afford to 'attrit' more than his opponents could), and he had a good sense of the battle (knew when and how long to play defense, knew when the right moment to attack was, etc.) Reminds me a bit of Wellington in that respect.

Answer 4

Zhukov was both. Genius, hot headed, impatient, unforgiving, demanding.

But his most deadly sin was being what he was in the eyes of the people. That's a trait impossible to overcome under a Joe Stalin regime.

Answer 5

I remember seeing a programme which painted the battle of Berlin as his greatest achievement, but in fact he made the same mistake the Germans did at Stalingrad - he committed too many tanks to an urban area and lost thousands of them.
If the Germans had had an army with attack capability outside the city, the result could have been very different. Don't think it would have changed the outcome of the war though.