Zhukov or Guderian

[Panag]

Re: Zhukov or Guderian?

Originally posted by Lancer
Imran brought up Zhukov, so here ya go...

hi ,

none of those two mass killers , .......

they where both responsable for the lives of to many , ......

have a nice day

[techumseh]

Lot's of uninformed opinion on this thread. Winston's right, it's getting old fast.

[GePap]

I say Zhukov, cause someone has to.

The problem with these threads is we keep comparing different kinds of generals-I mean, as has been stated, guderian held few field positions, and honestly, he was not stellar in most of them. Great military theoretician? Most certainly, so why not have a thread about military theoreticians?

[Imran Siddiqui]

none of those two mass killers , .......

they where both responsable for the lives of to many , ......

And this has what to do with their skill in generalship?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

none of those two mass killers , .......

they where both responsable for the lives of to many , ......

And this has what to do with their skill in generalship?

hi ,

skill in leadership starts with that , .......

asking your troops to help on the 9 th of november 1938 has nothing to do with leadership , neither has the invasion of three countries and two wars on the african continent before 1940 , .....

that aint leadership , in fact its a sign of someone who does not know at all to lead , ......

cause he also led germany down the drain , ...... he gave the orders , he signed on the maps , etc , .... therefore he is no leader what so ever , ......

have a nice day

[Lancer]

WoW, less than a banana seperates Zhukov and Guderian...

[Imran Siddiqui]

skill in leadership starts with that , .......

asking your troops to help on the 9 th of november 1938 has nothing to do with leadership , neither has the invasion of three countries and two wars on the african continent before 1940 , .....

that aint leadership , in fact its a sign of someone who does not know at all to lead , ......

cause he also led germany down the drain , ...... he gave the orders , he signed on the maps , etc , .... therefore he is no leader what so ever , ......

So because they asked troops to help and invaded 3 countries and participated in 2 wars in Africa, and giving orders to an ultimatly losing side means Guderian's and Zhukov's great generalship matters not?

Fact is that Guderian and Zhukov are two of the greatest generals of the 20th Century. Anyone who denies that is a fool (and yes, I consider those who look at something like skill through the blinders of politics to be fools).

I guess then you think Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are horrible leaders .

[Panag]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

skill in leadership starts with that , .......

asking your troops to help on the 9 th of november 1938 has nothing to do with leadership , neither has the invasion of three countries and two wars on the african continent before 1940 , .....

that aint leadership , in fact its a sign of someone who does not know at all to lead , ......

cause he also led germany down the drain , ...... he gave the orders , he signed on the maps , etc , .... therefore he is no leader what so ever , ......

So because they asked troops to help and invaded 3 countries and participated in 2 wars in Africa, and giving orders to an ultimatly losing side means Guderian's and Zhukov's great generalship matters not?

Fact is that Guderian and Zhukov are two of the greatest generals of the 20th Century. Anyone who denies that is a fool (and yes, I consider those who look at something like skill through the blinders of politics to be fools).

I guess then you think Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are horrible leaders .

great generals , pffffffffff

anyone who asks his army to work with the destruction of people aint great , and if he really was that great like rommel , well then how come people dont speak german all over europe these days , ......

he was not great at all , they just found some exploits in the other sides defense , they had some luck , thats all ......

anyone who kills civilians or asks the people below him to take a part of it aint great at all , .......

they where told that romania and bulgarian troops on the east would give up , they did not believe it , ....... anyone who is something in the army knows the value of intel , they ignored it , the battle of kursk was leaked out before it started , great security og great generals , then stalingrad , how could anyone who has read some history forget about it , .......

how many deadly mistakes did they make , ....... , way to many (!)

rommel used italian infantry on several times to walk and clear minefields , he never made any secret about it and wrote that down plenty of times , ....... nice to sacrifice , correction read murder the troops of your own axis , ......; yeah , sure , those are great generals , .........

[Imran Siddiqui]

and if he really was that great like rommel , well then how come people dont speak german all over europe these days , ......

So Napoleon was a horrible general then? Great generalship isn't necessarily decided by who ultimately wins or loses. The loser could be the better general, such as in the American Civil War.

he was not great at all , they just found some exploits in the other sides defense

THE BASICS OF GREAT GENERALSHIP! That's all .

And let's forget that he invented combined arms warfare.

then stalingrad , how could anyone who has read some history forget about it

Which Guderian did not want to do. Hitler overruled him.

how many deadly mistakes did they make , ....... , way to many

A. You attribute all German errors to Guderian when in fact you had Hitler make a number of bad errors.

B. NO General is ever perfect. They all make mistakes, even Alexander the Great. The question is who can deal with what they have and their mistakes to exploit the enemy's weakness.

Guderian not only exploited his enemy's weaknesses nicely, but also showed GREAT forethought and did not do what most generals do and that is fight the last war. He came up with a new style of warfare which has been highly inflential.

nice to sacrifice , correction read murder the troops of your own axis , ......; yeah , sure , those are great generals

So only bad generals sacrifice their own troops for the greater good? Wow... every general is bad then .

How evil one is has absolutely no bearing on how good of a general they are. It is like saying because someone is anti-Jewish their scientific advances in atomics are useless. They have nothing to do with each other.

I'll take Guderian, you take which dreg of a general who never sacrificed any of his troops.

[Az]

B. NO General is ever perfect. They all make mistakes, even Alexander the Great. The question is who can deal with what they have and their mistakes to exploit the enemy's weakness.

Alexander the Great... pffft.... he was gay, there is no way he could be 'great'. maybe he gave 'great' head, that's all.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

and if he really was that great like rommel , well then how come people dont speak german all over europe these days , ......

So Napoleon was a horrible general then? Great generalship isn't necessarily decided by who ultimately wins or loses. The loser could be the better general, such as in the American Civil War.

he was not great at all , they just found some exploits in the other sides defense

THE BASICS OF GREAT GENERALSHIP! That's all .

And let's forget that he invented combined arms warfare.

then stalingrad , how could anyone who has read some history forget about it

Which Guderian did not want to do. Hitler overruled him.

how many deadly mistakes did they make , ....... , way to many

A. You attribute all German errors to Guderian when in fact you had Hitler make a number of bad errors.

B. NO General is ever perfect. They all make mistakes, even Alexander the Great. The question is who can deal with what they have and their mistakes to exploit the enemy's weakness.

Guderian not only exploited his enemy's weaknesses nicely, but also showed GREAT forethought and did not do what most generals do and that is fight the last war. He came up with a new style of warfare which has been highly inflential.

nice to sacrifice , correction read murder the troops of your own axis , ......; yeah , sure , those are great generals

So only bad generals sacrifice their own troops for the greater good? Wow... every general is bad then .

How evil one is has absolutely no bearing on how good of a general they are. It is like saying because someone is anti-Jewish their scientific advances in atomics are useless. They have nothing to do with each other.

I'll take Guderian, you take which dreg of a general who never sacrificed any of his troops.

and a lame attempt on the bottom also , it was a Jew who build the A bomb , .......

any serious general shall not sacrifice read murder his own troops , ....... cause hello , without troops a general is worthless , and so is the general who fails to see this , .......

[Easthaven I]

I choose Guderian.

It just seems to me Zhukov's talent was sending his men into the meat grinder until the meat grinder clogged up and broke.

Guderian was the master of manuever warfare. I recommend "Panzer Leader" by Guderian. If it wasn't for him, I doubt Blitzkrieg would have been as successful as it was or if it even would have existed like it did on the German side.

[Zero]

I choose zhukov.

Im a fan of "Hammer the enemy with meat" tactic. Someone so cold and calculating to win turns me on.

[JCG]

Guderian, for many of the already mentioned reasons. Zhukov also committed some mistakes too, by the way...

Still, this is only considering them as successful military men..morally, I'd choose neither and probably hang them both (at different points in time and for different reasons).

[Imran Siddiqui]

any serious general shall not sacrifice read murder his own troops , ....... cause hello , without troops a general is worthless , and so is the general who fails to see this , .......

Then you think there are NO serious generals. They all sacrifice troops for certain objectives. They KNOW that 80%+ or so will die, but they really need that objective done. The general that doesn't sacrifice his troops ever for objectives is a general who isn't very good.