Worst Military Leaders In History

[MrMarbles]

Originally Posted by UserFinn

Concerning deads of population on Stalins or his "troops" hands, you sure may find sources easily if you want.
These figures what are presented due many years are:
10 000000 - 30 000000,dead caused by transport (Soviets had own name for railroad transport-system of prisoners and if I remember right, name was coming from "Pullman coatches" and prisoners just were starving and freezen on this system), forced laborn, on execution and on terror.

You shoud note also this: Stalin (With his acts) caused famine on Ukraine and again, depending on source,figures are showing amounts between 3 000000 - 14 000000 dead.

Now,lets take lowest figures from both these: 10 000000 + 30 000000 = 13 000000.
So, when I wrote 12 000000 victoms, it is quite near lowest estamated figure.
To these minimum 13 000000 we can add exsample Katyn mass-murder in Poland, done by Soviet army (Direct order from Stalin to shoot all officers + lot of civilians) and many other quite similar cases on other countries too.

I dont argue from these figures, as I wrote, you can find these if you want and from several sources and places, even from Russia on these days.

First of all, this is not really a thread about Stalin's crimes but more about his ability as a leader. Secondly, I never claimed that Stalin was a nice a guy or a great humanitarian. However when you claimed that the number of people died in the Gulag is 10 times the numbers I was familiar with, I felt compelled to respond. I don't have a great interest in this debate. All I can do it point you the Wikipedia article:
Gulag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The article is well sourced and includes several estimations by both Soviet/Russian experts and foreign authorities. The numbers of course differ greatly however most seem to indicate that somewhere between 10-20 million people passed through the Gulag system. The number of people dead as a result of incarcerations, however is much lower, closer to 1.2-3 million people. Again, this is still a lot of people and it is a crime against humanity but still 3 million dead is quite different than 30 million.

Another reason that I find your numbers to be grossly exaggerated is that the population of the Soviet Union steadily increased every year except in 1941-45 (for obvious reasons). Killing 20 million people would have had severe demographic consequences.

Now then...Prisoners:
Major part of prisoners and deads were politician, not kriminal.
Sure Soviet-union law was written that it was crinal to stand up against Stalin and even some one said that he was not happy with Soviet-union or Stalin, he (Or she) was criminal.
You may not know but Soviet-union had also quota for all criminals on 5 years periods.
Quota was filled allways complite (There was own quota for rapers,robbes and even drunks) and common for all was that quota was all the time increased because "Gulag" was beed more and more "Fuel".
On "Terror-time" it was not matter if some one was criminal or not, he or she was calculated as an criminal and take away from home or street, just to get quota filled.
This all info can be found from several books and history documents, just in case that this sounds "Crazy" and unbelievable.
Soviets did not had to wait night and KGB, this happened only early of 1930s, later KGB (Or Milise) juts pick up citizens from streets,why be bothered and wait night when when everybody knew what is happening...Litle nice detail was that on those trucks what were transporting citizens from homes and streets, was advertising "MEAT"(There was not too much meat for normal citizen) or "Drink Soviet champange" (There was not champange for normal citizens).

Again, I'm not disputing that Stalin was a ruthless dictator. But his is irrelevant to this thread.

And last back to to super-power states:
Super power (On state level) means innovations,welfare,eargerness,enterprise,high-tec products,resources,etc. + big state with big population.
If other of these are missing, it is not super power state....meaning that 1+0 = 1 and 1+0 is not 2.
If some one is thinking that "super power" means only capacity to use slaves and capacity to send massive amounts of peoples to the dead, I am happy allow this viewpoint for those who like to see "Super-pover" state that way.

I've never seen anyone dispute that the Soviet Union was a superpower. Being a superpower means, more than anything, having considerable international influence, which the Soviet Union certainly had. "Eagerness" and "innovation" have nothing to do with it.

Russia sure will be super power but Soviet-union was not and Stalin managemed only with terror, not because he was great leader....And if some one is saying that Soviet union and Stalin had great succes at WW2, you may check first what caused this "Succes":
My strong opinion is that with out Stalin/Lenin, Russian had been super power already 40-50 years ago.

Today at least Russia is just a shadow of what the Soviet Union was at its height. Russia's influence in the world is almost non existent. It's population is shrinking. It's government is corrupt. It's economy revolves around selling oil and gas.

"Lend and lease" help from US,GB and Canada.
Here is some of that "Lend and lease" help, between years 1941-1945:
375 833 Trucks, 51 503 Jeeps, 35170 Motorbikes, 8 075 Traktors, 7 053 Tanks, 14 795 Planes, 1 900 Locomotives(Steam,)66 Locomotives(Diesel), 9 920 Wagons, 1000 Wagons for special purpose,120 Wagons for tanks, 4 478 116 tn food, 2 670 371 tn oil-products,185 000 Phones (For army),1 100 000 km cabel, 2 300 000 tn steel, 229 000 tn aluminium.

After this massive help,Soviet union still had massive problems...
What I am saying is that with out this help: No even mini "Super power", nada.

This is a bit closer to the subject of this thread.
Lend-Lease does not at all diminish the Soviet contribution to victory. The British, by the way, received almost 3 times more in supplies by dollar value. Nevertheless I'm pretty sure that they would have also had "massive problems" if there had not been the English Channel separating the British Isles from the continent.

Operation Barbarossa was the largest invasion in history. The German army was the most formidable force in the world at that time, having nearly unprecedented amount of training and experience which put it qualitatively head and shoulders above any other military of that period. In addition, Germany had a number of allies, Finland among them. Peoples of conquered nations - France, Czechoslovakia and others were forced to contribute resources to Germany to support the war effort. Even officially "neutral" countries such as Spain and Sweden also contributed in raw materials and other ways.

Germany attacked without either warning or declaration of war. It succeeded in disguising its plans and concentrating its forces on the border without raising enough suspicion from the Soviets until it was too late. As a result, the Red Army was caught unprepared - which put it in a severe disadvantage. This is in stark contrast to the campaign in France, for example, where both sides were engaged in the so called "Phony War" for several months before any real fighting took place.

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did not collapse or surrender. It managed to completely spoil all German plans and hand the Nazis their first major defeat. During the first 4 months of the campaign on the Eastern front, Germany sustained more casualties than in all of their other campaigns for 1939-1941 combined (this is against Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, Greece and Yugoslavia, and the air/u-boat campaign against Great Britain). All of this took place well before Lend Lease supplies reach the Soviet Union in any meaningful numbers or could materially impact operations at the front. This achievement is nothing short of extraordinarily.

This help was shipped to Murmansk and from there to the south with trains.
Railway was following (And still is) east border of Finland and it caused that finns got also part of this help...But only bullits and ammos from planes,guns and cannons (So thank you very much indeed )

The Finns also gave some back =P

Now when I look over my shoulder and calculate my books from Stalin alone, there is 6 pcs.
Also I have books concerning Gulags, GRU and KGB, I even have "Security"(For Soviet military personals only) edition of soviet military guns.
So I believe that I have read quite well "My soviet history".

Glad to hear it.

[UserFinn]

Originally Posted by MrMarbles

First of all, this is not really a thread about Stalin's crimes but more about his ability as a leader. Secondly, I never claimed that Stalin was a nice a guy or a great humanitarian. However when you claimed that the number of people died in the Gulag is 10 times the numbers I was familiar with, I felt compelled to respond. I don't have a great interest in this debate. All I can do it point you the Wikipedia article:
Gulag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've never seen anyone dispute that the Soviet Union was a superpower. Being a superpower means, more than anything, having considerable international influence, which the Soviet Union certainly had. "Eagerness" and "innovation" have nothing to do with it.


This is a bit closer to the subject of this thread.
Lend-Lease does not at all diminish the Soviet contribution to victory. The British, by the way, received almost 3 times more in supplies by dollar value. Nevertheless I'm pretty sure that they would have also had "massive problems" if there had not been the English Channel separating the British Isles from the continent.

Operation Barbarossa was the largest invasion in history. The German army was the most formidable force in the world at that time, having nearly unprecedented amount of training and experience which put it qualitatively head and shoulders above any other military of that period. In addition, Germany had a number of allies, Finland among them. Peoples of conquered nations - France, Czechoslovakia and others were forced to contribute resources to Germany to support the war effort. Even officially "neutral" countries such as Spain and Sweden also contributed in raw materials and other ways.

Thanks concerning link of "Gulag" but please note that when I wrote casualties of Stalin, it includes all Stalins acts, on all levels and not just those who died in gulags.

Concerning "Lend and lease" help, my opinion still is that only with this help Soviet-union got enought power to stand at the front of german pressure.
Later, when germans had lost they "Best power",this help was not anymore so big issue.
So, "Lend and lease" help to GB is not relevant on this issue...Also please note that US-help to GB also help Soviet-Union ( Germany was not able send enought force to the eastern-front).

Finland was some how in allience with Germany, that is true.
Reason for this is after asking several times help from France,GB,US,Sweden and etc., results were just "Shaking hands".
It was question of live and dead and Germany was only state were finns could get weapons against Soviet-union.
Also we need to remember main point and that is that Stalin drawn Finland to the war, finns did not attack to the Soviet-union or even had any plans to do so (Sure official Soviet-union probaganda was telling that 4 000000 finns are coming and like to slavery 164 000000(?) russians and do that with only some shot-guns and few old planes )

On that issue you are right that Sweden was some how on commericial alliance with Germany,steel from Kiruna area make big part of Hitlers succes on war.

[Felix C]

There is a difference between a political leader who directs the military from the outside and the actual military officer who conducts the battle. Hitler, Stalin, LBJ,etc are not applicable to this standard unless they take the field as the warrior-kings of old.

WWI generals are the whipping boy for incompetence but there were few alternatives to carefully orchestrated frontal assaults. It was a learning process. Every army undergoes one. I recall reading a Normandy vet who was later a correspondent in Vietnam write that U.S. soldiers committed the same errors he/his men did in WWII.

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by Felix C

There is a difference between a political leader who directs the military from the outside and the actual military officer who conducts the battle. Hitler, Stalin, LBJ,etc are not applicable to this standard unless they take the field as the warrior-kings of old.

WWI generals are the whipping boy for incompetence but there were few alternatives to carefully orchestrated frontal assaults. It was a learning process. Every army undergoes one. I recall reading a Normandy vet who was later a correspondent in Vietnam write that U.S. soldiers committed the same errors he/his men did in WWII.

See, I disagree with your first paragraph when it comes to Hitler. He was intimately involved in both the planning and execution of the campaigns, overriding his general staff on even tactical decisions.

What's more, while I agree that World War I generals entered the conflict expecting to refight the Franco Prussian War, it was pretty obvious by mid-1915 that they were facing an entirely new battlefield reality. Yet they continued to try the same tactics again and again. In truth, the development of the tank and the Gallipoli campaign were both seen as end-arounds of the slaughter in Flanders and France. At the same time, commanders were suspicious of change and didn't commit. Haig was intrigued by the possibilities of the tank, especially after the breakthrough at Cambrai, but really didn't push for it hard enough, particularly when incorporating armor in doctrine.

[Felix C]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

See, I disagree with your first paragraph when it comes to Hitler. He was intimately involved in both the planning and execution of the campaigns, overriding his general staff on even tactical decisions.

What's more, while I agree that World War I generals entered the conflict expecting to refight the Franco Prussian War, it was pretty obvious by mid-1915 that they were facing an entirely new battlefield reality. Yet they continued to try the same tactics again and again. In truth, the development of the tank and the Gallipoli campaign were both seen as end-arounds of the slaughter in Flanders and France. At the same time, commanders were suspicious of change and didn't commit. Haig was intrigued by the possibilities of the tank, especially after the breakthrough at Cambrai, but really didn't push for it hard enough, particularly when incorporating armor in doctrine.

I respect your input but mine is AH was not a military officer. He was a politician who meddled like LBJ.

As for the WWI, there were political considerations for initiating or maintaining the attacks. The doctrine was straightforward in terms of firepower destroying the defensive works for a breathough. Technique needed much practice. Tanks were not a panacea. The war could not wait for new tech or new doctrine. You have have to fight now with what you have.

[Fred314X]

I'm going with that well-known Nervous Nellie from the Civil War, General McClellan. No matter how much of an advantage he had over the Confederates in personnel and equipment, he always believed he was outnumbered and acted accordingly.

[MrMarbles]

Originally Posted by UserFinn

Thanks concerning link of "Gulag" but please note that when I wrote casualties of Stalin, it includes all Stalins acts, on all levels and not just those who died in gulags.

Concerning "Lend and lease" help, my opinion still is that only with this help Soviet-union got enought power to stand at the front of german pressure.
Later, when germans had lost they "Best power",this help was not anymore so big issue.
So, "Lend and lease" help to GB is not relevant on this issue...Also please note that US-help to GB also help Soviet-Union ( Germany was not able send enought force to the eastern-front).

Finland was some how in allience with Germany, that is true.
Reason for this is after asking several times help from France,GB,US,Sweden and etc., results were just "Shaking hands".
It was question of live and dead and Germany was only state were finns could get weapons against Soviet-union.
Also we need to remember main point and that is that Stalin drawn Finland to the war, finns did not attack to the Soviet-union or even had any plans to do so (Sure official Soviet-union probaganda was telling that 4 000000 finns are coming and like to slavery 164 000000(?) russians and do that with only some shot-guns and few old planes )

On that issue you are right that Sweden was some how on commericial alliance with Germany,steel from Kiruna area make big part of Hitlers succes on war.

Even without Lend-Lease, the Soviet Contribution to winning WWII was enormous. Please see the other thread titled "Who won the WWII?" or something like that.

Nothing highlights Stalin's contribution to the Soviet victory better than a simple comparison between Imperial Russia's experience in WWI (which ended in a revolution and a disintegration of the army) and the Soviet experience in WWII (where, despite a less favorable strategic situation, the Red Army was ultimately victorious).

Originally Posted by Felix C

I respect your input but mine is AH was not a military officer. He was a politician who meddled like LBJ.

Ahh but "war is politics by other means".

It is far more common for a political leader (who is often the C-in-C) to "meddle" than not to meddle in a conduct of a war.

Originally Posted by Felix C

As for the WWI, there were political considerations for initiating or maintaining the attacks. The doctrine was straightforward in terms of firepower destroying the defensive works for a breathough. Technique needed much practice. Tanks were not a panacea. The war could not wait for new tech or new doctrine. You have have to fight now with what you have.

Correct. Both sides hated the stalemate but they couldn't exactly sit in trenches for a decade (especially not the Germans). And by 1918, both sides found two very different solutions to the problem. For the Allies it was a new technology while for the Germans it was revolutionary new tactics.