Stalin and Zhukov

[punisa]

Just stumbled upon a video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTDdUsj0ye4

In the second part it claims that Stalin was jealous of Zhukov and had him demoted on this basis.
Is this true?
How about Zhukov, did he have any tangible ideas of being "over ambitious" after the war as documentary said?
Thanks:)

[Robocommie]

Zhukov and Stalin never really did get along. Zhukov later wrote in his memoirs that he repeatedly argued with Stalin over matters of strategy during the war. He was indeed demoted and placed in charge of the Odessa Military District. It wasn't until Stalin died that his career recovered and he came back to prominence.

He was actually an ally of Khruschev's for a while, he played a crucial role in the arrest of Lavrenty Beria and was on the tribunal that had him shot, and he gave a speech denouncing Stalinists to the Central Committee.

[Barry Lyndon]

"In the name of the Soviet people, you are under arrest, you son of a *****!"-Gen. Zhukov to Beria, 1953.

I have some respect for the man, he seemed to be an honorable person trapped in an evil system. He, more then any other single person, was responsible for the Soviet victory in World War II over the Nazis(besides Hitler himself), while the bastard Stalin got all the credit. I'm glad he helped take down Beria-that man was a monster and a coward. Beria not only oversaw the torture and execution of hundreds of thousands, he was also a pedophile who kidnapped young girls and raped them in his private cell. He was scum.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Ive got this almoust childish admiration to Zhukov (who i also have as my avatar) and its verry sadly that he has becommed degradated in the wests history books, where you wont find him among the other great military leaders of the WWII, you will just hear that he had a lot of troops to handle with and there for he wasnt really a strategic master mind like the other guys, wich is bullshit.
Offcourse Stalin was jelause of him, but he needed him so hadly therefor he was never executed like other war heroes frome the russian civil war. He was also known for being one of the few persons that actually could say to Stalin what he really thought.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm glad he helped take down Beria-that man was a monster and a coward. Beria only oversaw the torture and execution of hundreds of thousands, he was also a pedophile who kidnapped young girls and raped them in his private cell. He was scum.

Beria was the capitalist roader par excellence long before Deng Xiaoping. The only good thing coming out of Beria was his common recognition of the German situation with Stalin: East Germany was a liability compared to a non-aligned unified Germany.

[danyboy27]

lets not forget zukhov work regarding the reabilitation of soviet POW and Ostarbeiter detained in gulag beccause they have been made prisonnier by the nazi, .

I mean seriously, what kind of sick shit is that.

[Woland]

"In the name of the Soviet people, you are under arrest, you son of a *****!"-Gen. Zhukov to Beria, 1956.

Beria was murdered in 1953, not 1956, you idiot. The same idiots as you also tried to tell me that Stalin sent tanks to Hungary, 1956. Besides, the above scene never occured. As for the rest of your vile bullshit you son of *****, I suggest reading less Wikipedia and growing the fuck up.

As for Zhukov, he should've been put up against the wall in 1938.

[Barry Lyndon]

Beria was murdered in 1953, not 1956, you idiot. The same idiots as you also tried to tell me that Stalin sent tanks to Hungary, 1956. Besides, the above scene never occured. As for the rest of your vile bullshit you son of *****, I suggest reading less Wikipedia and growing the fuck up.

As for Zhukov, he should've been put up against the wall in 1938.

I think it's pretty vile to idolize a piece of shit like Stalin, but that's just me.

Ha! Zhukov against the wall? Who would Stalin steal the credit for winning the war from? Ah, yes, thats right, he wouldn't have won the war and the Soviet Union would have become a massive Nazi slave colony.

[Bright Banana Beard]

The pedophile accusation was the common charge for Stalinists under Khruschev, which is bullshit.

[danyboy27]

The pedophile accusation was the common charge for Stalinists under Khruschev, which is bullshit.

False accusation is an habit of the past i guess.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As for Zhukov, he should've been put up against the wall in 1938.

Going against your fellow "Anti-Revisionists," are we?

I recall Ludo Martens writing of how Zhukov himself became a political victim of Khrushchev after the expulsion of the Anti-Party Group.

[Unclebananahead]

Beria was murdered in 1953, not 1956, you idiot. The same idiots as you also tried to tell me that Stalin sent tanks to Hungary, 1956. Besides, the above scene never occured. As for the rest of your vile bullshit you son of *****, I suggest reading less Wikipedia and growing the fuck up.

As for Zhukov, he should've been put up against the wall in 1938.

Wait, what? Why should Zhukov have been shot? I'm a bit confused.

[Bright Banana Beard]

False accusation is an habit of the past i guess.
Fortunately, all those charges were dropped when Khrushchev got ousted.

[son of man]

lol @ Zhukov against the wall in '38 comment. If Stalin had killed any more of the army in '38 then he would have lost the war.

[gilhyle]

Well, if what other posters have written here about Zhukovs integrity is true then woland is correct - he should have been shot in 38, if not earlier. Wouldnt want one man (or woman) of any integrity to survive.

Specifics of the Crime on the warrant of execution could have been left blank and filled in later ...... conspiring to ensure Hitler would win WWII sounds like a good one - poetic

[Pavlov's House Party]

If I remember correctly, the white horse that Zhukov chose to ride in the Victory Parade was one that threw Stalin off its back when he tried to ride it once.

[Soviet]

No,it was the horse that bit off Trotsky's balls.

[Wanted Man]

I think it's pretty vile to idolize a piece of shit like Stalin, but that's just me.

Ha! Zhukov against the wall? Who would Stalin steal the credit for winning the war from? Ah, yes, thats right, he wouldn't have won the war and the Soviet Union would have become a massive Nazi slave colony.

Yeah, wars are always won by individuals...

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Yeah, wars are always won by individuals...

Well no, one thing thats not so much talk about when you read about war is the spirit and the dedication to win, wich was very high among the soviet people and in the red army during WWII. But also when it commes to war you Need a leader who will make out wich strategy is best.
Zhukov was an exellent strategist and leader, so therefor you must give him extra cred for the victory.

[Uppercut]

I'm hearing a lot of pro and anti-Zhukov/Stalin arguments.

I'm confuzzled -_-

[Die Neue Zeit]

According to the more balanced book Stalin's Wars, both parties and not just Zhukov and the rest of the General Staff played key roles during the war that helped seal the Soviet victory. When Zhukov and the rest of the General Staff were too aggressive, the restraint of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, People's Commissar of Defense, Chairman of the State Defense Committee, and future Generalissimus of the Soviet Union - Stalin - won out. When Stalin was aggressive enough, it was up to Zhukov and the rest of the General Staff to make sure the aggression worked. When Stalin was too aggressive, Zhukov and the rest of the General Staff sorta ganged up to restrain their vozhd.

I should also quote a summary of that book found in Amazon, which is bolder than my own assessment above:

http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Wars-World-Cold-1939-1953/dp/0300112041


This breakthrough book provides a detailed reconstruction of Stalin’s leadership from the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 to his death in 1953. Making use of a wealth of new material from Russian archives, Geoffrey Roberts challenges a long list of standard perceptions of Stalin: his qualities as a leader; his relationships with his own generals and with other great world leaders; his foreign policy; and his role in instigating the Cold War. While frankly exploring the full extent of Stalin’s brutalities and their impact on the Soviet people, Roberts also uncovers evidence leading to the stunning conclusion that Stalin was both the greatest military leader of the twentieth century and a remarkable politician who sought to avoid the Cold War and establish a long-term detente with the capitalist world.

By means of an integrated military, political, and diplomatic narrative, the author draws a sustained and compelling personal portrait of the Soviet leader. The resulting picture is fascinating and contradictory, and it will inevitably change the way we understand Stalin and his place in history. Roberts depicts a despot who helped save the world for democracy, a personal charmer who disciplined mercilessly, a utopian ideologue who could be a practical realist, and a warlord who undertook the role of architect of post-war peace.

[Warboy99]

Stalin was worried Zhukov would take over the USSR.

[Wanted Man]

Well no, one thing thats not so much talk about when you read about war is the spirit and the dedication to win, wich was very high among the soviet people and in the red army during WWII. But also when it commes to war you Need a leader who will make out wich strategy is best.
Zhukov was an exellent strategist and leader, so therefor you must give him extra cred for the victory.

Sure, he played his part, but it's not as if the USSR would have lost the war without him. The whole Zhukov worship thing is fucking stupid, anyway. There were lots of other good military leaders in the USSR.

It's weird that even on Revleft, discussion about history contains lots of popular misconceptions and "great man" history. People need to stop watching the History Channel and read a book or something.

[Kléber]

Sure, he played his part, but it's not as if the USSR would have lost the war without him. The whole Zhukov worship thing is fucking stupid, anyway. There were lots of other good military leaders in the USSR.

It's weird that even on Revleft, discussion about history contains lots of popular misconceptions and "great man" history. People need to stop watching the History Channel and read a book or something.
It is not about the "great man" theory, it is about generals that were trained in the art of mobile warfare. The purges killed 2/3 of the officer corps, banned the military writings of Tukhachevsky and Triandafillov and other advocates of deep battle, and instead promoted WWI/Civil War style tactics focusing on fixed positions and cavalry charges. When Barbarossa hit, another military purge was even underway. Tukhachevsky's insistence on defense in depth and the risk of German penetration had been discarded in favor of propagandist nonsense about "winning the war on the enemy's soil," and Soviet troops were arrayed in vulnerable offensive posture on 22 June. So no, there were not that many competent officers by 1941 who knew how to properly use combined Soviet arms in a modern conflict against the German army. If a small group of officers who advocated mobile armored warfare had not been kept alive, it is doubtful that the Red Army could have been reorganized into such an effective mechanized fighting force. I think it is significant that the greatest Soviet commanders of WWII, Zhukov and Rokossovsky (http://www.great-victory1945.ru/marshals_zhukov_and_rokossovsky.jpg), had been disgraced in 1937 and closely avoided execution for their connections to the "Trotskyist Anti-Soviet Military Organization."

[Robocommie]

Sure, he played his part, but it's not as if the USSR would have lost the war without him. The whole Zhukov worship thing is fucking stupid, anyway. There were lots of other good military leaders in the USSR.

It's weird that even on Revleft, discussion about history contains lots of popular misconceptions and "great man" history. People need to stop watching the History Channel and read a book or something.

No one single man can dictate the course of history, but individuals can play a key role, depending on where they are placed and in what time, in order to make the most of their influence. Take Erwin Rommel for instance. No, he sure as hell didn't fight the campaign in North Africa alone, but it was his strategic mind that directed the contributions of every other individual within the campaign.

I don't think "great men" write history, but neither are they irrelevant. I prefer a balanced approach to that question. I think history is directed by social forces, which are made up by the confluence of individuals within the great mass of society, and that individuals in key positions of power are both influenced by, and exert influence upon those social forces.

I understand this can be problematic for some, because Marxist historiography is usually concerned with classes and analyzing the class nature of historical events, and that's a legitimate way of approaching things, but taking too purist an approach and dismissing the influence of key individuals is, I think, a mistake.