4 ms·

Zhukov is actually very controversial nowadays. A lot of the early historians accepted his autobiography as a the main source pretty uncritically. There is ano

Zhukov is actually very controversial nowadays. A lot of the early historians accepted his autobiography as a the main source pretty uncritically. There is another historical view of Zhukov: - He wasn't the military genius he portrayed himself to be and actually stole the credit for the achievements of other officers. For example he supposedly saved Stalingrad yet was nowhere near it, he came to Halkin Gol when the battle was beginning and didn't credit the staff chief for the excellent planning and so forth. - He was a Stalin yes-man, and in stark contrast to his autobiography, there is no proof he ever challenged him on any decision. This is what Stalin liked, he needed talented commanders, but also people who will follow his orders to the letter. - His handling of the Red Army in the summer of 1941 while he was Chief of Staff, was absolutely disastrous. He lost millions of men in ill planned counter attacks. Stalin kept him around because he followed orders (see above). - Besides being a yes-man, by all unofficial accounts he was a brute and enjoyed humiliating his soldiers and officers. He was often in fights even with other marshals. - He didn't care much about his soldiers lives, this is why Stalin sent him to capture Berlin as soon as possible. - He wasn't demoted because of paranoia (he probably wouldn't be alive). He was actually demoted because he allowed his troops to pillage Eastern Germany for months, and took a huge share of the booty. Not that Stalin was particularly humanitarian, but this meant that discipline had become nonexistent. - Far from being apolitical and not involved in intrigue, he actually participated in a coup against Malenkov and Beria. He almost became the leader of the Soviet Union, however was cleverly outmaneuvered by Khrushchev who put him in retirement. - His mythos began during the time of Brezhnev, when he needed to rewrite the history of WWII to suit his ends. His autobiography was certainly not written by him, as are its subsequent 15 editions which hilariously contradict each other often. His daughter supposedly finds forgotten pages that just happen to complement the evolving views of Kremlin for over 40 years.

fmajid 7y ago
Even if true, by killing Beria, he probably saved more Soviet citizens from a horrible death than those killed by Hitler.
- arethuza 7y ago
  Beria actually wanted to liberalize the Soviet system - he reduced the power of the MVD and released a lot of people from the Gulag. Mind you, at a personal level, he was an asbsolute monster - but I don't think if he had stayed in power there would have been any more mass purges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria#First_Deputy_Premier_and_Soviet_triumvir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria#First_Deputy_P...
  - huhtenberg 7y ago
    Beria was a fucking mass murderer, who created two generations of people who were scared to death to speak freely. "Wanted to liberalize the system" my ass.
    - arethuza 7y ago
      Absolutely - the guy was a complete monster both at a personal level and through his actions as a senior member of Stalin's regime.
    - cryptonector 7y ago
      They all were monsters and murderers. Kruschev was in charge of the party purges at Leningrad. Beria was something special, but then, he had to be: all the serial NKVD heads were and had to be, but Beria was more monstrous than the rest. Now, maybe Beria intended to liberalize once in power, and maybe he even did a bit, just as Kruschev did later too. But it's hard to say that Beria wasn't going to continue being a monster. Now, Kruschev and the rest of the politburo certainly didn't want to be led by Beria -- they knew Beria was a monster and would eat them alive, so Beria had to go. Of course, if Kruschev had meant to be an uber monster himself once in power, Beria would still have had to go. There's no two ways about it: monsters have to take the competition down. Beria had less than four months in power, so it's hard to judge how it would have gone from there had he stayed in power as long as Kruschev. All I know is they were all monsters. Stalin had seen to it that they so be -- they all had to have skin in the game to protect Stalin.
kmlx 7y ago
no surprises. most soviet personalities were in fact figments of the KGB imagination.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
I never understood why there is this tendency to make military leaders into heroes. They are not better and not worse than leaders in any other area. The top leaders most likely are just very good politicians. If we want heroes then it should be the poor guys who have to go to battle for no payoff and often loss of life or limb.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  >>>I never understood why there is this tendency to make military leaders into heroes. They are not better and not worse than leaders in any other area. The top leaders most likely are just very good politicians. Historically, casualties in war were far higher than they've been lately, so successful military leaders USUALLY were lauded for their ability to not bring home friendly troops in bodybags repeatedly. Now, I'm not even sure we've seen them accomplish that. With a few exceptions they are mostly energetic, charismatic, yes-men who deliver mediocre results.[1] Having worked in a 3-star headquarters....flag officers are definitely cut from a different cloth, personality-wise, even compared to many of the Colonels I've worked for directly under them. >>>If we want heroes then it should be the poor guys who have to go to battle for no payoff and often loss of life or limb. It's not like we ignore them, almost all medals for valor are awarded to junior ranks (enlisted guys and a few junior officers). As a rough estimate, look at the living Medal of Honor recipients from Iraq & Afghanistan[2]. The only exception in recent memory is maybe the field-grade Marine officer who organized the defense of Camp Bastion[3], and he was given a much lower medal (still, a Silver Star is very impressive). [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_Medal_of_Honor_recipients#War_in_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_Medal_of_Honor_... [3]https://www.stripes.com/news/marine-awarded-silver-star-for-response-to-camp-bastion-assault-1.257138 https://www.stripes.com/news/marine-awarded-silver-star-for-...
watwut 7y ago
> He wasn't the military genius he portrayed himself to be Useful corollary would be to stop taking any self-celebration so naively. It is not like his autobiography was the only one where a person celebrates himselfs and ads himself a credit.
lukaa 7y ago
I agree that no person should be idealized or anyone view on history should be trusted without questions, but where did you find credible sources to your view because both Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov and Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Georgy-Zhukov https://www.britannica.com/biography/Georgy-Zhukov confirm positive view on Zhukov same as article.
arcturus17 7y ago
What I recall from the texts of mainstream yet highly respected and rigorous historians like Beevor or Sebag de Montefiore is that Zhukov was painted in a mostly positive light. Who is on the other side of the controversy?

fmajid 7y ago

Even if true, by killing Beria, he probably saved more Soviet citizens from a horrible death than those killed by Hitler.

arethuza 7y ago
Beria actually wanted to liberalize the Soviet system - he reduced the power of the MVD and released a lot of people from the Gulag. Mind you, at a personal level, he was an asbsolute monster - but I don't think if he had stayed in power there would have been any more mass purges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria#First_Deputy_Premier_and_Soviet_triumvir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria#First_Deputy_P...
- huhtenberg 7y ago
  Beria was a fucking mass murderer, who created two generations of people who were scared to death to speak freely. "Wanted to liberalize the system" my ass.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    Absolutely - the guy was a complete monster both at a personal level and through his actions as a senior member of Stalin's regime.
  - cryptonector 7y ago
    They all were monsters and murderers. Kruschev was in charge of the party purges at Leningrad. Beria was something special, but then, he had to be: all the serial NKVD heads were and had to be, but Beria was more monstrous than the rest. Now, maybe Beria intended to liberalize once in power, and maybe he even did a bit, just as Kruschev did later too. But it's hard to say that Beria wasn't going to continue being a monster. Now, Kruschev and the rest of the politburo certainly didn't want to be led by Beria -- they knew Beria was a monster and would eat them alive, so Beria had to go. Of course, if Kruschev had meant to be an uber monster himself once in power, Beria would still have had to go. There's no two ways about it: monsters have to take the competition down. Beria had less than four months in power, so it's hard to judge how it would have gone from there had he stayed in power as long as Kruschev. All I know is they were all monsters. Stalin had seen to it that they so be -- they all had to have skin in the game to protect Stalin.

kmlx 7y ago

no surprises. most soviet personalities were in fact figments of the KGB imagination.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

I never understood why there is this tendency to make military leaders into heroes. They are not better and not worse than leaders in any other area. The top leaders most likely are just very good politicians. If we want heroes then it should be the poor guys who have to go to battle for no payoff and often loss of life or limb.

CapricornNoble 7y ago
>>>I never understood why there is this tendency to make military leaders into heroes. They are not better and not worse than leaders in any other area. The top leaders most likely are just very good politicians. Historically, casualties in war were far higher than they've been lately, so successful military leaders USUALLY were lauded for their ability to not bring home friendly troops in bodybags repeatedly. Now, I'm not even sure we've seen them accomplish that. With a few exceptions they are mostly energetic, charismatic, yes-men who deliver mediocre results.[1] Having worked in a 3-star headquarters....flag officers are definitely cut from a different cloth, personality-wise, even compared to many of the Colonels I've worked for directly under them. >>>If we want heroes then it should be the poor guys who have to go to battle for no payoff and often loss of life or limb. It's not like we ignore them, almost all medals for valor are awarded to junior ranks (enlisted guys and a few junior officers). As a rough estimate, look at the living Medal of Honor recipients from Iraq & Afghanistan[2]. The only exception in recent memory is maybe the field-grade Marine officer who organized the defense of Camp Bastion[3], and he was given a much lower medal (still, a Silver Star is very impressive). [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_Medal_of_Honor_recipients#War_in_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_Medal_of_Honor_... [3]https://www.stripes.com/news/marine-awarded-silver-star-for-response-to-camp-bastion-assault-1.257138 https://www.stripes.com/news/marine-awarded-silver-star-for-...

watwut 7y ago

> He wasn't the military genius he portrayed himself to be Useful corollary would be to stop taking any self-celebration so naively. It is not like his autobiography was the only one where a person celebrates himselfs and ads himself a credit.

lukaa 7y ago

I agree that no person should be idealized or anyone view on history should be trusted without questions, but where did you find credible sources to your view because both Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov and Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Georgy-Zhukov https://www.britannica.com/biography/Georgy-Zhukov confirm positive view on Zhukov same as article.

arcturus17 7y ago

What I recall from the texts of mainstream yet highly respected and rigorous historians like Beevor or Sebag de Montefiore is that Zhukov was painted in a mostly positive light. Who is on the other side of the controversy?