# WW2 Allied Leadership



## michaelmaltby (Jul 10, 2009)

Recent threads have provoked strong feelings about which ally made the greatest contribution in WW2. While fighting strength and industrial output were critical, l_eadership_ was also vital. Who is the greatest WW2 military and non political leader for the *Allied Cause?

Political Leaders:*
Churchill
Roosevelt
Stalin
Tito
Truman


*Military Leaders:*
Zhukov
Montgomery
Marshall
Eisenhower
Bradley
Patton
MacArthur
Harris
LeMay
Halsey
Chuikov

Wondering members thoughts on this.

MM


----------



## diddyriddick (Jul 10, 2009)

In my view, Eisenhower gets the nod. Anybody that could subordinate(mostly)those massive egos of his subordinates deserves my vote.


----------



## lingo (Jul 10, 2009)

I would like to see Freeman and Dowding on the list. The latter was a star throughout the Battle of Britain but was burnt out afterwards. Freeman starred throughout the 39 -45 war, and was friendly with Arnold. He was able to advise Arnold when the US wanted light and medium bombers that they really needed heavy bombers - and many of them.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 10, 2009)

diddyriddick said:


> In my view, Eisenhower gets the nod. Anybody that could subordinate(mostly)those massive egos of his subordinates deserves my vote.



Great point. Understood power and used it very wisely. Plan to defeat the Nazis was good. Went to a stregth of the Allies they could not hope to match.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 10, 2009)

Would add Spruance and Nimitz in there as well. Also Slim. 

Don't think Halsey was better than Spruance. Definitely not better than Nimitz.

Slim has my vote over Harris and Montgomery.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 10, 2009)

Churchill had heart, a great wartime leader.

Eisenhower had the perfect temperment for a General. Patton was definantly Eisenhower's best General. Bradley and Monty were just too cautious and slow too act. I really don't know how Monty kept his job. I am also not a big fan of MacArthur. Nimitz was better.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 10, 2009)

You would probably want Churchill running your country but Eisenhower running your military to bring about victory, but not the other way round


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 10, 2009)

Some thoughts .. George Marshall picked Ike .... and his Plan kept the war in Western Europe _won_. I agree there are major omissions in my quick list. Dowding being one I shouldn't have missed. Was FDR a strong leader (1939 - 1945] ... or did he just have good delegates?

MM


----------



## parsifal (Jul 10, 2009)

I am surprised that the great US adminstrators are not on the list.......Nimitz, and Marshal in particular. These men were the architects of the US victory.

For the British I would like to see Mountbatten and Slim for their efforts in India and Burma, and Cunningham for his efforts in the Med. O'Connor would have done great things if he not been captured. 

In the Pacific, the great US leader was Macarthur. The man has his faults, but he was able to forge together a wartime alliance with the Australians that persists to this day. In a sense it is the most enduring legacy of the war....the forging of the alliances that preserved the western way of life


----------



## Amsel (Jul 10, 2009)

Waynos said:


> You would probably want Churchill running your country but Eisenhower running your military to bring about victory, but not the other way round



Right!


----------



## renrich (Jul 10, 2009)

Without Churchill, Britain might have folded. Eisenhower did a good job as an administrator. Nimitz did likewise in the PTO. Halsey was overhyped, IMO, Spruance was much better. Slim was probably the best British general, but his efforts were not appreciated by Churchill. The politics behind the scenes regarding the Allies were incredible.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 10, 2009)

For political leadership, I think FDR did a great job, but it was Churchill who had to keep a country on the front lines facing a possible invasion motivated. Some of his speaches still send shivers up my spine.

Military: I have to go with Patton.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 10, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Churchill had heart, a great wartime leader.
> 
> Eisenhower had the perfect temperment for a General. Patton was definantly Eisenhower's best General. Bradley and Monty were just too cautious and slow too act. I really don't know how Monty kept his job. I am also not a big fan of MacArthur. Nimitz was better.



The best strategic thinker for US probably Was MacArthur, however. He maximized ground taken while minimizing casualties with his three dimensional grasp of the battlefield.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 10, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I am surprised that the great US adminstrators are not on the list.......Nimitz, and Marshal in particular. These men were the architects of the US victory.
> 
> *Agreed and Hap Arnold fits there also.*
> 
> ...



We see eye to eye - and MacArthur forged a lasting Democracy in Japan. I was there as a young child in 1948-1951. The Japanese revered him.

Patton was our best Corps/Army Battle Commander/ LeMay was our greatest Airman with huge contributions in ETO and PTO and Halsey gets my vote for Best Squid in the field.

I rank Churchill as one of the greatest leaders of all time...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 10, 2009)

Marshall is on the list, Parsifal. As I mentioned, he picked Ike for Supreme Command - and put Europe back together quick enough to check Stalin.
To me, by WW2 FDR's strength came from his delegates. I have enormous admiration for Zhukov - from the Japanese in May-Sept '39 to Berlin '45. He was a master of logistics as well as strategy.

What impresses me most about MacArthur is the re-build of Japan. And likewise, great respect for Truman for plain spoken leadership both as VP and POTUS when the 2 Allied bombs were deployed.

But soldiers shape both the battle and the peace - and George Marshall as military leader and Churchill as political leader would be my choice.

MM


----------



## Butters (Jul 10, 2009)

Too many Allied second-raters/ prima donnas and not enough far more deserving Germans and Soviets, IMO.

US: Marshall
Arnold
Pete Quesada, 9th AF
Patton
Nimitz
Spruance
Halsey

GB: Dowding
Slim
Alexander

SU: Zhukov
Konev
Chuikov
Rokossovsky
Dovater

Germany: Manstein
Guderion
Balck
Rundstedt
Rommel
Kesselring
Manteuffel
Moelders

JL

EDIT: Just remembered that this was about ALLIED leadership...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 10, 2009)

I like Churchill better than Roosevelt, so I think I'll give the vote to him. Churchill had to deal with enemy attacks on his own soil, even on his goverment places, so he had to show great leadership in action under fire. He was also a great positive force on Britain and even the US. Roosevelt did a lot too, no doubt about it, after Pearl Harbor to get Americans fightig, but I think his input was perhaps less crucial. 

Sure, Stalin had a tough time but I am NOT going to give my vote to him. Many of his actions had terrible effects on Russia and even the rest of the world. 

I guess Ike probably deserves the title for Allied military commanders, but there were quite a few good ones out there.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jul 10, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Marshall is on the list, Parsifal. As I mentioned, he picked Ike for Supreme Command - and put Europe back together quick enough to check Stalin.
> To me, by WW2 FDR's strength came from his delegates. I have enormous admiration for Zhukov - from the Japanese in May-Sept '39 to Berlin '45. He was a master of logistics as well as strategy.
> 
> What impresses me most about MacArthur is the re-build of Japan. And likewise, great respect for Truman for plain spoken leadership both as VP and POTUS when the 2 Allied bombs were deployed.
> ...



Not to disparage Zhukov too much but he was a master of sending men into the meat grinder.
Casualties meant nothing to him.
If a minefield was in the way he was willing to send his men through it first.
They could be more easily replaced than the equipment.

I don't beleive he would have made it as a US or Britsh commander as his tolerance for casualties would have been considered too high, IMO.
You need a Stallin or Hitler to accept his type of command style.


Wheels


----------



## Freebird (Jul 10, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Recent threads have provoked strong feelings about which ally made the greatest contribution in WW2. While fighting strength and industrial output were critical, l_eadership_ was also vital. Who is the greatest WW2 military and non political leader for the *Allied Cause?
> 
> Political Leaders:*
> Churchill
> ...



Wow, so much to respond to on this thread!

Good topic!

First off, let me suggest that you should split up "Military Leadership" into "Strategic" "Tactical" {ie, decides war strategy, WHERE to attack and WHAT troops to send there.}

So "Strategic" vs "Tactical" would be like Eiesenhower Dowding vs Patton Park

Also you shoud split up into 3 branches of service.

So "Military Leader" would be split into 6 categories, 3 Strategic {Land, Sea Air} and 3 tactical

There could also be a special categorie for "builder" {Marshall, Beaverbrook etc} 



diddyriddick said:


> In my view, Eisenhower gets the nod. Anybody that could subordinate(mostly)those massive egos of his subordinates deserves my vote.



Eisenhower wasn't the best Strategic commander, but I do give him top marks for leadership in dealing with the French and all the other nations. No British general could have done this, given the bias against them



timshatz said:


> Great point. Understood power and used it very wisely. Plan to defeat the Nazis was good. Went to a stregth of the Allies they could not hope to match.



Uh, he didn't design the plan to defeat the Nazis, that was a British plan. The American plan was a recipe for disaster....  



Amsel said:


> Eisenhower had the perfect temperment for a General. Patton was definantly Eisenhower's best General. Bradley and Monty were just too cautious and slow too act. I really don't know how Monty kept his job. I am also not a big fan of MacArthur. Nimitz was better.



Eisenhower did have a good temperment for a leader. Monty? By the time in the war that he was given army command the British could not afford to take casualties, he was careful for a reason



Amsel said:


> Churchill had heart, a great wartime leader.





drgondog said:


> I rank Churchill as one of the greatest leaders of all time...



Ok, time too start ruffling some feathers... 

I pick Churchill as one of Britains greatest *political leaders*, but also one of the *WORST* British military leaders ever! {He was Minister of Defence}


----------



## Freebird (Jul 11, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I guess Ike probably deserves the title for Allied military commanders, but there were quite a few good ones out there.



Don't guess Soundbreaker, pick the best guy and be prepared to explain WHY he was so good! 



parsifal said:


> I am surprised that the great US adminstrators are not on the list.......Nimitz, and Marshal in particular. These men were the architects of the US victory.





michaelmaltby said:


> Marshall is on the list, Parsifal. As I mentioned, he picked Ike for Supreme Command - and put Europe back together quick enough to check Stalin.
> 
> But soldiers shape both the battle and the peace - and George Marshall as military leader and Churchill as political leader would be my choice.
> 
> MM




Ok, I am going to shock some more sensibilities here... The US *Strategic Command* was the* WORST* of all the Allies, and if the American plans had been follow instead of the British, there is a good chance of the Allies LOSING the war in the ETO.


However, first off, I'm going to give top marks to Marshall as *administrator * as Parsifal mentioned, for building up the Army, annd also top marks for re-building Europe, as mentioned before.

However he was poor at *Military planning*

The *"Top 4"* US leadership.

1.) Sec. of War - Stimson.
2.) Chief of the Army - Gen. Marshall
3.) Head of the Navy - Adm. King
4.) US Air Force - Gen Arnold

As Sec of State, Stimson closed down the US cryptoanalysis program, as he said "Gentlemem don't read each other's mail"

After the attack on Pearl Harbour, he was considering defending the Rocky Mountains if Japan invaded the west coast... 

Both Stimson Marshall were solidly if favor of a direct 1942 attack in France,{Sledgehammer} to "Help the Soviets". This plan was an unmitigated disaster, and would have actually made things WORSE for the Soviets. In later years, Eisenhower {who had been asked to draw up the plan} was honest enough to admit that the planned attack was hopeless, and by taking up to a quarter-million casualties, may have prompted the US Congress to withdraw from the European war. 

For preparation for Torch, Marshall wanted to mount an attack against only against the Atlantic coast, gaining only a single port, {Casablanca}, and then use the rickety French built railway to supply the entire army over 1,000 miles distant. The British insisted that the ports of Oran Algiers be attacked at the same time, to prevent the defenders from destroying port facilities, and to provide 2 more ports over 400 miles farther East. 

Admiral King was perhaps the worst of the US leaders, his refusal to organize convoys, or to allow any coastal blackouts doomed hundres of thousands of tons of Allied shipping. Even when shipping companies offered to provide maritime air patrol, he refused to allow it.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 11, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> I agree there are major omissions in my quick list.
> 
> MM



Yes indeed.



Waynos said:


> You would probably want Churchill running your country but Eisenhower running your military to bring about victory, but not the other way round



*No, for Strategic military leadership I would want the BEST Allied general of the war*, British C.I.G.S. and Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff - General Sir Alan Brooke.

No other Allied General had a better understanding of combined operations the vital importance of logistics, it was *his plan* that was adopted for the European theater {The "Concentric" or "Mediterranean" plan}




Alright - a challenge to all of those on this thread: List a dozen {or top 5?} reasons for your picks for best leaders. Such as: brilliant ot important decisions, actions that were critical for success, that victory couldn't have been achieved without.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jul 11, 2009)

Alright, I'll give it a shot. I'll start with one. Spruance as a military leader. 

1. Was more pragmatic then Halsey, which I believe to be a better quality. Halsey jumped the gun at Leyte, and left Taffy 3 and the invasion beaches vunerable. I can't see Spruance making the same mistake. 

2. Knew when to quit the fight. At Midway, he was smart in turning his fleet back to Pearl after sinking four IJN flaptops and one crusier, diminishing the chance for a surface fight with the IJN. 

3. He listened to his staff, who knew more about carrier combat then Spruance himself, who was a crusier commander. 

Crap, I can't think of up to five, probably since I'm half asleep.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 11, 2009)

freebird said:


> Ok, time too start ruffling some feathers...
> 
> I pick Churchill as one of Britains greatest *political leaders*, but also one of the *WORST* British military leaders ever! {He was Minister of Defence}



I think people misunderstand me when I say Churchill was a great wartime leader. War time leader does not mean general, because he wasn't. Political war time leader, yes.

I wouldn't worry too much about ruffling feathers, everyone has a different view on the same events. Arm chair generals are us.


----------



## stasoid (Jul 11, 2009)

My vote goes to Zhukov for Khalkhin Gol, Battle Of Moscow and Battle Of Stalingrad. All three events became turning points in soviet military history. Under his strategic leadership all three turned from a defensive retreat into decisive victory. + Operation Bagration - the greatest military operation of WW2.




wheelsup_cavu said:


> Not to disparage Zhukov too much but he was a master of sending men into the meat grinder.
> Casualties meant nothing to him.
> If a minefield was in the way he was willing to send his men through it first.



Chief Of the General Staff wouldnt normally deal with a particular minefield. Not his level. 
Victory at all cost was his philosophy, that's true, but actual casualty rate under his command was lower then among other soviet commanders.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 11, 2009)

freebird said:


> Don't guess Soundbreaker, pick the best guy and be prepared to explain WHY he was so good!



Ok, some of the reasons are:

1. Because his cooperation with the British, French, Canadians, ect. and the organizing of their forces in a strong offensive helped shorten the war by a lot in Operation Overlord. 

2. He was a good military leader, who managed to stay out of politics. (At least until after the war. )

3. He was a leader that was good at keeping popular support and not abusing it, both as General and even after the war as President.

4. He was more likable than Patton and managed to avoid the power struggles MacArthur fell in to.

5. Except for operation Market Garden, most of Eisenhower's battles in the ETO were sucessful.


I like also General William Slim, for he was a good general, and a humble man.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 11, 2009)

Stasoid - I think Chuikov deserves credit for Stalingrad, not Zhukov. 

Freebird - if I'd collected all the names that rightfully belong in the list - thought about it a while - etc. etc. - the thread never would have got posted  That's what's great about this forum, I know you guys will put the picture straight if I hang it lop-sided.

*Churchill:*
Great experience .. in power and out of power
Very motivational - understood how to bring people together in crisis
Understood and appreciated the Americans
He was daring - sometimes (especially in earlier years) almost reckless
Realistic. More than anyone he knew what it would take to defeat the Nazis and how to treat Stalin (and Tito)
Visionary.

*Marshall*
Great military bureaucrat that understood how to make the system work
Recognized the talent Ike had to co-operate with peers and surpress his own ego
Knew how to use both military power and economic to liberate Europe and hold it
Understood the evil of communism and the value of aid as a reconstruction tool
Modest

I think Zhukov deserves great recognition for surviving Stalin's regime.

MM


----------



## Freebird (Jul 11, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Stasoid - I think Chuikov deserves credit for Stalingrad, not Zhukov.
> 
> Freebird - if I'd collected all the names that rightfully belong in the list - thought about it a while - etc. etc. - the thread never would have got posted  That's what's great about this forum, I know you guys will put the picture straight if I hang it lop-sided.
> 
> MM





Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Ok, some of the reasons are:
> 
> 1. Because his cooperation with the British, French, Canadians, ect. and the organizing of their forces in a strong offensive helped shorten the war by a lot in Operation Overlord.
> 
> ...



Good list Soundbreaker, although 1, 3 4 sound more like political attributes. Perhaps this guy should have run for some political office.... 

I would rate Eiesenhower as a "good" military leader, but not great. His failure to recognize the importance of capturing the Schelt at the same time as Antwerp gave the Germans time to dig in, and wasted weeks while the area could be cleared for shipping. Also the American refusal to accept the British offer to supply "Funnies" {specialty engineering tanks} for Overlord caused many needless casualties.

That being said, I like Ike, he was one of the best people to work with. Wouldn't have wanted anyone else to coordinate the various nations military forces. 



OK, so far on my list:

*Political Leader*  - *Churchill* All of the Allied leaders were "Strong" though, I could have easily picked Roosevelt

*Builder* - *Marshall* For his work modernizing the US Army, and for his re-building of Europe

*Strategic Military Leader*

Army - *Alan Brooke* - I will post my reasons in the next post..
Air - *Hugh Dowding*
Naval - ?? I think Pound did a very good job in the Admiralty, but I'd like to see the arguments for Nimitz first

*Tactical Military Leader*

Air - *Kieth Park* - His actions as commander of 11 group and as Air commander on Malta in 1942 won both these battles for the Allies against a SUPERIOR Axis force. One of New Zealand's best leaders! 8)
Naval *Andrew Cunningham* As commander in the Mediterranen with a smaller British fleet against a larger Italian force, he took took the fight straight to them, he was the one that planned the airstrike on the Italian fleet at Taranto, and his use of radar to engage the Italians at night, resulted in the larger Italian fleet withdrawing from the Southern Med.
Ground - ?? I'd like to see some more advocates for this.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 11, 2009)

Churchill was a great figurehead and inspirational speaker. He also did much to build the very strong relationship with the US. OTOH, he was a serial dilletante in strategy (admittedly more so in WW1 that WW2), and was a highly divisive figure in British political life. He was not first choice to replace Chamberlain - but Lord Halifax didn't want the job, so Churchill ended up as PM almost by default. 

His stint at the Admiralty prior to becoming PM was marked by the endless strea, of memos known as 'The First Lord's Prayers', as they usually began 'Pray tell me...'. His concept of the 'Unit of Search' (one carrier and one cruiser searching for submarines) was proved fatally flawed when HMS Ark Royal was attacked (fortunately without result) by U-39 11 days after the war started, and HMS COurageous, escorted by only two destroyers, was destroyed by U-29 three days later. And on 12 September, just three days after returning to office, Churchill published his thoughts on 'Operation Catherine', an attempt to resurrect the terminally flawed 'Baltic Design' of WW1. Overall, not a man to be let anywhere near the military side of the war. His role at the Admiralty was in fact political and he should never have had anything to do with operational matters - he just couldn't resist meddling.

Just a bit of food for thought - I certainly wouldn't list Churchill as a great war leader. I also agree that Spruance was the better commander than Halsey, for the reasons folks already listed. Dowding was a great commander in the early stages of the war - his decision not to send any more fighters to France and conserve them for the German campaign he knew would follow was courageous and far-sighted, even if it sacrificed some of France's trust in the UK (not that there was much left by that stage anyway). Cunningham also deserves a nod for his leadership of the RN in the Med.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 11, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Churchill was a great figurehead and inspirational speaker. He also did much to build the very strong relationship with the US.
> 
> Just a bit of food for thought - I certainly wouldn't list Churchill as a *great war leader*.




Are you talking Military or Political?

I am much in agreement, Churchill was a great figurehead and inspirational speaker. He also did a good job to keep political unity in the UK during the war, it was only on the "Strategy" side that things fell apart.

You obviously know your history details 

And the "prayers" did not end with his stint as First Lord, Admiral Pound was constantly called to explain every minute detail, too much Admiralty time was wasted answering all of Churchills queries.

As Minister of Defence, his biggest blunders were the deployment of the PoW Repulse without Air support {against the advice of Pound the Admiralty}, also the withdrawl of the forces from Africa to be sent to Greece ended up losing both battles


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 11, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Would add Spruance and Nimitz in there as well. Also Slim.
> 
> Don't think Halsey was better than Spruance. Definitely not better than Nimitz.
> 
> Slim has my vote over Harris and Montgomery.



Nimitz was the perfect commander of the Pacific fleet. He wrote the textbook on how to organize the command structure for such a massive fleet. Not to mention his personality and temperament were perfect for the job.

Halsey was a "fighting admiral". There's no doubt he lit a spark in the sailors when he took command. I rate him a notch or two above Spruance.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 11, 2009)

Halsey blundered at Leyte precisely because he was a fighting admiral. He concentrated too much on trying to fight a glorious action against the Japanese fleet instead of the less glamourous job of protecting the beaches and completing the mission. In so doing, he exposed Taffy Three, and the invasion beaches beyond them to mortal danger. Had it not been to Taffy Three's tin cans and their spirited stand, the invasion could have been severely compromised. That is enough to put him behind Spruance in my estimation.

freebird, not sure what Churchill comes under when he was at the Admiralty - he was a politician as opposed to a military man, but was heavily involved in military decision making, mainly when he shouldn't have been. Bit of a grey area I suppose  

Oh, and forgot to mention, the bits about Churchill at the Admiralty were drawn from Corelli Barnett's _Engage The Enemy More Closely: The Royal Navy in the Second World War_ - highly recommended for anyone interested in the period, although it a bit of a beast at 1052 pages. Rest of the post was from general education and reading


----------



## renrich (Jul 11, 2009)

The interesting thing about this discussion is that for every "authority" who holds up a leader as a "great" one, there is another "authority" who states that that particular leader was an unmitigated disaster. For instance, I have always thought that MacArthur was an outstanding wartime general, both in WW2 and Korea,( up until he got fired) not to mention his job in Japan postwar. Just finished a modern book by a Brit who has almost nothing good to say about MacArthur as a general in WW2 and makes some good points to support his position. What it boils down to is that they were all human and if they did not make mistakes, they propbably were not doing anything and a lot depends on one's perspective in judging them. One leader who has not been mentioned is Truman, for the way he handled himself in the closing months of the war. I would submit that he had a better handle on the menace that the Soviets represented than did FDR and the world might have been better off if Truman had been president from 1944 on instead of FDR.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 11, 2009)

True ren, there is always going to be much subjectivity in this kind of debate. I rate leaders who completed the mission higher than leaders who went after glory at the expense of their mission - so Halsey and Monty will never be big scorers for me, whereas Spruance and Dowding will.

Interesting point about Truman too. However, I don't see how the course of post-1945 European history could have been changed short of an armed confrontation of some kind with the USSR. This was difficult - only the US and UK were really in a position to do anything of the sort in 1945, as the rest of Europe was recovering from occupation and had little in the way of armed forces of it's own - the Germans were, after all, beaten or too politically suspect to be allied against the USSR.Furthermore, Churchill had comissioned a plan for a war with the USSR starting on July 1st (Operation Unthinkable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but the Army had included that Operation Unthinkable was also impossible. That would have left the USA potentially trying to finish off the Japanese and confronting, maybe even fighting a resurgent Red Army - not an edifying prospect for Truman.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 11, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Nimitz was the perfect commander of the Pacific fleet. He wrote the textbook on how to organize the command structure for such a massive fleet. Not to mention his personality and temperament were perfect for the job.



Syscom I'm inclined to agree with you, that's why I'm leaning towards Nimitz for "Strategic Naval Leader"



BombTaxi said:


> freebird, not sure what Churchill comes under when he was at the Admiralty - he was a politician as opposed to a military man, but was heavily involved in military decision making, mainly when he shouldn't have been. Bit of a grey area I suppose
> 
> Oh, and forgot to mention, the bits about Churchill at the Admiralty were drawn from Corelli Barnett's _Engage The Enemy More Closely: The Royal Navy in the Second World War_ - highly recommended for anyone interested in the period, although it a bit of a beast at 1052 pages. Rest of the post was from general education and reading



That's wat I do credit him for, his "never surrender" attitude. Too bad he didn't fire the Defence Minister as PM though... 

I thought Brooke's book was excellent for it's insights into the aspects of WWII planning command, I liked Eisenhower's book, although I got the feeling that he was pulling some punches, he didn't want to hurt his political career by telling what he REALLY thought about some of the players.

Guys, what's your criteria for "Best Political Leader"?


----------



## Juha (Jul 11, 2009)

Air: 
Doolittle, as offensive commander
Park, as defensive commander
Cochrane, as bomber commander

Ground:
Brooke
Konev
Patton
Auchinleck, in spite of some of his Corps commander selections
O’Connors
Pips Roberts

Sea:
Nimitz 
Cunningham
Spruance


----------



## stasoid (Jul 11, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Stasoid - I think Chuikov deserves credit for Stalingrad, not Zhukov.
> 
> I think Zhukov deserves great recognition for surviving Stalin's regime.
> 
> MM



Chuikov was a tactician - an army general. In particular at Stalingrad he was in command of 62nd Army defending the city and did a good job exosting german troops in the initial phase of the Battle, but strategic planning (Operation Uranus) was developed and executed under Zhukov's command. 

It is remarkable how outspoken he was in his critics of Stalin's decisions on many occasions that cost him many posts in his up and down military career. Stalin feared Zhukov's popularity among troops but couldnt let him go, he needed Zhukov's t brilliant strategist talent.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 11, 2009)

I would put General Marshall as the most capable senior army officer of the war. He is the one who helped oversee the industrial mobilization of the US, the expansion of the US army from a couple of divisions to several million men, trained them [think thats not important?] and helped plan the general guidelines to defeat the axis.

And he did this with broad support and approval from the FDR, Congress and the public. And that is extremely tough to do.

WW2 clearly demonstrated that in a global war, macro level logistics counts for far more than tactics.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 11, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> ......Furthermore, Churchill had comissioned a plan for a war with the USSR starting on July 1st ......Operation Unthinkable - .......



I never heard of that.

That is interesting to know.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 11, 2009)

I'd never heard of it til this afternoon either  It doesn't surprise me though, Churchill was no fan of the Left in general - he had suggested turning machine guns on the picket lines during the General Strike of 1926. He didn't much like the Russians either, despite his insistence on providing them with support throught WW2, and his personal role in ensuring the Artic convoys went through at all costs.

I would say, sys, that you undervalue tactics somewhat. The relationship between tactics and logistics is, IMHO, symbiotic - force cannot be applied without logistical support, but there is no point turning out thousands of weapon systems and shipping them all over the globe if they are a failure in combat, through defective design, manufacture or employment. It cuts both ways.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 11, 2009)

Truman _is_ on the original list of Political Leaders ..... 

...because by 1944 he was in far better shape than FDR. People "misunderestimated" Harry ... but personally , I think Harry had more guts than FDR.

Korea in '50 was just an "after-shock" ... and going nuclear on China would have been the biggest mistake the US ever could have made. And the man who said "yes" to bombs 1 and 2 knew he had to say "no" to the General who wanted to use bomb 3 ++.

I am thoroughly enjoying this thread ... dissing politicians and generals is different than dissing nations. 

MM


----------



## stasoid (Jul 12, 2009)

Churchill was pathetic in his anti-hitler rhetorics, sitting on the island out of reach, feeling safe. His country got 70% of the total Lend-Lease aid and contributed 5% into the war efforts. 
What a great leader indeed.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> I would say, sys, that you undervalue tactics somewhat. The relationship between tactics and logistics is, IMHO, symbiotic - force cannot be applied without logistical support, but there is no point turning out thousands of weapon systems and shipping them all over the globe if they are a failure in combat, through defective design, manufacture or employment. It cuts both ways.



I wouldnt say tactics can be ignored. But, less than optimum tactics can be offset by shear industrial power and the resultant firepower it can produce.

Look at the story of the US army vs the Germans. The Germans did have better small unit tactics, weapons and superior tanks and AFV's.

But the US qualitative inferiority in those categories wasn't so bad as to be suicidal or insurmountable, and the allied industrial power more than offset it. 

So again, Marshall gets credit for creating the conditions to allow his army to prevail.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Truman _is_ .....but personally , I think Harry had more guts than FDR.



After reading up on FDR, I would say it was FDR who had more guts. Truman would not have played cat and mouse with the nazi's in the Atlantic in 1939-1941 like FDR did.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 12, 2009)

Your post is disturbing in so many ways. 
I could really go off on it, but I won't.  




stasoid said:


> Churchill was pathetic in his anti-hitler rhetorics,



Hitler was a swell guy, eh what? 



stasoid said:


> sitting on the island out of reach, feeling safe.



Flying to Egypt Moscow via Gibraltar, Malta Cyprus, not like there were ant Axis aircraft about in the Med eh?
Sailing across the Atlantic to conference with Roosevelt, good thing the Germans didn't have any U-boats lurking about...
I suppose bombs dropping on London during the Blitz doesn't count does it, feeling real "safe" over there in Whitehall...  



stasoid said:


> His country got 70% of the total Lend-Lease aid and contributed 5% into the war efforts.



Just out of curiousity, from the Fall of France in July 1940 until Barbarossa in June 1941, just who exactly was doing the other 95% of the fighting? 



stasoid said:


> What a great leader indeed.



And just who exactly would be our candidate for "Great Leader"?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2009)

stasoid said:


> Churchill was pathetic in his anti-hitler rhetorics, sitting on the island out of reach, feeling safe. His country got 70% of the total Lend-Lease aid and contributed 5% into the war efforts.
> What a great leader indeed.



Do you have any factual information on that?

I agree Freebird, the post is disturbing, or humorous.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2009)

As for best AF leader, I would nominate three individuals.

Hap Arnold who over saw the transformation of the prewar air force that was 3rd rate, into the preeminent AF that no other country could match. Part of his "greatness" was his ability to pick great subordinates for both staff and command. Nearly all of them were kept around for the post war USAF and help build that up.

Gen. Kenney who commanded the 5th (and later the FEAF) AF for doing the most with the least.

Gen LeMay for being a brilliant bomber tactician and after the war commanded the SAC.


----------



## stasoid (Jul 12, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Do you have any factual information on that?QUOTE]
> 
> Great Britain received 31 billion out of total 50 billion Lend Lease Aid. OK, it's 62%, not 70, my mistake.
> 
> 75% of all Axis losses (excluding Japan) occured on Eastern Front. Remaining 25% could be distributed between US, Canada, Great Britain, France, different resistance groups on occupied territories in Western Europe. So UK's contribution into victory will be somewhere around 5%. This is my best guess ofcourse. If you think differently, please provide your arguments and numbers.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 12, 2009)

stasoid said:


> Great Britain received 31 billion out of total 50 billion Lend Lease Aid. OK, it's 62%, not 70, my mistake.



And how much did the UK send to Russia? BE SURE TO INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION FEES!



stasoid said:


> 75% of all Axis losses (excluding Japan) occured on Eastern Front. Remaining 25% could be distributed between US, Canada, Great Britain, France, different resistance groups on occupied territories in Western Europe. So UK's contribution into victory will be somewhere around 5%. This is my best guess ofcourse. If you think differently, please provide your arguments and numbers.



Suppose the British blocade prevented the Nazis from obtaining vital war supplies, but caused no casualties, is that worth nothing?


----------



## Marcel (Jul 12, 2009)

diddyriddick said:


> In my view, Eisenhower gets the nod. Anybody that could subordinate(mostly)those massive egos of his subordinates deserves my vote.



I don't consider Eisenhower as one of the greatest leaders. He was unable to suppress the ego's of his subordinates like Patton and Montgomery eniough. This led to many extra casualties and disasters like Market Garden. He was a military diplomat. Not outspoken enough, so all parties would accept him.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 12, 2009)

"... His country got 70% of the total Lend-Lease aid and contributed 5% into the war efforts." 

OK Stasoid - but if memory serves his country re-paid it's bills to the US. That's more than I can say for the other large LL receipiant.

And 5% of the war effort ... well senority has its advantages and - giving your 5% figure the benefit of the doubt (for just a moment ) - neither the USSR or USA was involved in fighting the Allied cause in 1939. If I'm not mistaken, one of the two was actually on the opposite side in 1939 - and actively participating in the gobble-up. If your singing the Soviet Blues here Stasoid .... I'm not dancing. Stalin and the communists cooked up their own stew with Germany and then got burned when they ate it.

Churchill had his faults but he played his cards with both FDR and Stalin very well. He was providing military aid to the Soviet Union before America was and he provided Stalin with intelligence of both Barbarossa and much else ... which Stalin chose to ignore out of paranoia, until Kursk.

No Stasoid - if you have difficulties with Churchill as a leader then I think you probably have problems with democracy. Of course I stand willing to be corrected on that.

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 12, 2009)

"... 75% of all Axis losses (excluding Japan) occurred on Eastern Front."

Sad but true. Are you proposing Stalin as your choice for Leaderership candidate, Stasoid?

MM


----------



## imalko (Jul 12, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... 75% of all Axis losses (excluding Japan) occurred on Eastern Front."
> 
> Sad but true...



Why is that sad? Axis were invaders, "bad guys" in WW2. So, to paraphrase you earlier statement Michael - Nazis cooked up their own stew with Stalin and the communists and then got burned when they ate it.

As for Churchill... No, I don't agree with all what Stasoid said about him, but we must admit that he made his share of mistakes in both world wars, like Gallipoli (1915) and Norway (1940) for example. However, he was a great statesman and leader never the less.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 12, 2009)

"Sad but true ...". 

No issue with your point Imalko but reality can still be sad. 

MM


----------



## renrich (Jul 12, 2009)

Those who denigrate Churchill for his military skills need to look at his whole resume. He was a visionary and aggresive about pushing his views, sometimes leading to not good results but he did have some active duty military experience, unlike many other political leaders. He was an early advocate for naval aviation as well as the dreadnought battleship. He certainly was right in viewing the American desire to make an early landing in France as premature. Sometimes the execution of schemes he advocated was faulty which was not his fault.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 12, 2009)

Not to simplify but ... Churchill was the product of a confident modern American woman and a confident modern aristocratic English father ... no ..? 
He reflects the best and worst of both influences, I'd say. And when you think how it all came about ... Munich to Molotov-Ribbentrop to Pearl ... Churchill was the ONLY political figure ..... with a clear strident public, political voice ... who could have stood up and brought the British working masses to their feet with him ... for all his faults. And the moment the crisis was over ... well, we know what happened 

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 12, 2009)

Imalko .. "to paraphrase you earlier statement Michael - Nazis cooked up their own stew with Stalin and the communists and then got burned when they ate it." VERY TRUE - just proving that it take 2 to tango - or i it takes at least 2 to have a "*conspiracy"* and Molitov-Ribbentrop was the very essence of a political conspiracy between two DICTATORS ... or National Leaders if I'm being diplomatic 

MM


----------



## lingo (Jul 12, 2009)

stasoid said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > So UK's contribution into victory will be somewhere around 5%. This is my best guess ofcourse. If you think differently, please provide your arguments and numbers.
> ...


----------



## Amsel (Jul 12, 2009)

Somehow you have a quote of Syscom saying something he didn't really say, if you go back and read the thread.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 12, 2009)

Mine is also misquoted.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 12, 2009)

"After reading up on FDR, I would say it was FDR who had more guts. Truman would not have played cat and mouse with the nazi's in the Atlantic in 1939-1941 like FDR did.".

I commented earlier that ".. by *1944* FDR was weakening". That is not a criticism of FDR Syscom, but a fact. Stalin knew FDR was dying and he damn well knew *he* wasn't.

I agree that in '39 - '41 FDR played chicken aka Reuben James but remember - sectors of the US public were pro-German and others were pro-isolationist. FDR could be cheaky with Hitler perhaps but only AFTER Joe Kennedy in London had been proved wrong.

FDR was - at heart - opposed to the notion of Commonwealth.

MM


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2009)

lingo said:


> stasoid said:
> 
> 
> > No. You were the one who brought up 5%. You provide some facts and figures to back that guess up!
> ...


----------



## Waynos (Jul 12, 2009)

stasoid said:


> Churchill was pathetic in his anti-hitler rhetorics, sitting on the island out of reach, feeling safe. His country got 70% of the total Lend-Lease aid and contributed 5% into the war efforts.
> What a great leader indeed.



That has to be the most ill-though out comment aI have ever seen on any website ever


----------



## Amsel (Jul 12, 2009)

Waynos said:


> That has to be the most ill-though out comment aI have ever seen on any website ever



It is purely revisionist, and is typical neo-nazi propaganda.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2009)

renrich said:


> Those who denigrate Churchill for his military skills need to look at his whole resume. He was a visionary and aggresive about pushing his views, sometimes leading to not good results but he did have some active duty military experience, unlike many other political leaders. He was an early advocate for naval aviation as well as the dreadnought battleship. He certainly was right in viewing the American desire to make an early landing in France as premature. Sometimes the execution of schemes he advocated was faulty which was not his fault.



I won't go as far as saying he was the best leader, but I am 100% sure he was the right man at the right time to lead England during the war. He gave hope to his people and in the end I believe he made the right decisions at the right time.


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2009)

Personally I am waiting for Stasoid to supply his nominations, could be interesting.

Freebird and others have replied to his rather disturbing rants better than I ever could.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 12, 2009)

Churchill could be very forceful and rash. Sometimes it was what was required and sometimes it led to bad mistakes. It should not however be seen as an overriding character trait. He did, for example, listen to Dowding when the Churchill of popular legend would have said 'to hell with you' and done exactly the wrong thing. He was much more complex than is given credit for. Luckily.

I never knew that the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic, D-Day, North Africa, Burma and the rest was only 5% of the war effort. What have I missed all these years?

There is something a little bit disturbing about someone who calculates 'war effort' in terms of the number of dead bodies you can pile up. Or am I alone in that view?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2009)

Waynos said:


> There is something a little bit disturbing about someone who calculates 'war effort' in terms of the number of dead bodies you can pile up. Or am I alone in that view?



It raised my eyebrows too.


----------



## lingo (Jul 12, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Somehow you have a quote of Syscom saying something he didn't really say, if you go back and read the thread.



I apologise. I clearly did a hasty copy and paste job. Sorry pardon.


----------



## renrich (Jul 12, 2009)

A good example of how losses in combat do not necessarily equate to the amount of effort in winning a war or campaign is look at the relatively few casualties the US incurred in the PTO versus the results. As far as mortality rate of US servicemen, that war was won "on the cheap."


----------



## stasoid (Jul 12, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I never knew that the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic, D-Day, North Africa, Burma and the rest was only 5% of the war effort. What have I missed all these years?
> 
> There is something a little bit disturbing about someone who calculates 'war effort' in terms of the number of dead bodies you can pile up. Or am I alone in that view?



Do you see another way of winning a Total War against Nazi Germany other then physically destroying its army's personell and equipment? To my understanding "war effort" can only be measured by the number of evemy troops your army has killed.
Let's take for example Battle Of Britain, Luftwaffe lost 1800 aircrafts out of 19.000 Germany produced that year. During the War Germany built 120.000 aircrafts that makes BoB accountable for 1.5% of total Luftwaffe losses. Same math can be applied to the ground forces operating in North Africa and Normandy.

Please, dont call me neo-nazi, revisionist or stalinist only because I disagree with that Churchill was the "greatest" leader. Just so you know, I dont think Stalin was either, my opinion of him is something far different from to be called " the greatest".

And as for Britain fighting alone untill 41', not entirely true - the soviets already fought Axis forces as early as Spanish Civil War in 1936, then little known Lake Hasan and Battle of Khalkin Gol in 1938-39.


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2009)

stasoid said:


> Do you see another way of winning a Total War against Nazi Germany other then physically destroying its army's personell and equipment? To my understanding "war effort" can only be measured by the number of evemy troops your army has killed.


You could equally describe 'war effort' as being an economic measure as a percentage of the GNP, or the number of people you lost to the war. To base it on the number you kill is to my mind stupid. How do you factor in the extermination of the Jews, Gipsies, mentally impared, POW's kept in inhumane conditions civilians killed in air raids.



> Let's take for example Battle Of Britain, Luftwaffe lost 1800 aircrafts out of 19.000 Germany produced that year. During the War Germany built 120.000 aircrafts that makes BoB accountable for 1.5% of total Luftwaffe losses. Same math can be applied to the ground forces operating in North Africa and Normandy.


This takes the biscuit. You could equally say that the BOB accounted for, what say 25% of the planes built during the BOB (guys that was a guess). What exactly does it prove.



> Please, dont call me neo-nazi, revisionist or stalinist only because I disagree with that Churchill was the "greatest" leader.


I will happily call you a revisionist if you base your effectiveness on a body count.


> Just so you know, I dont think Stalin was either, my opinion of him is something far different from to be called " the greatest".


We are still waiting for who you think was the best.
PS Roosevelt get my vote.



> And as for Britain fighting alone untill 41', not entirely true - the soviets already fought Axis forces as early as Spanish Civil War in 1936, then little known Lake Hasan and Battle of Khalkin Gol in 1938-39.



I must have missed the bit aout the UK and USA taking on Spain during the war and the UK taking sides in the Spanish Civil War. Was this something to do with the Spanish Armada or are my dates out?

Small point Khalkin Gol was during the Japanese Russian conflict in the Far East, that you know. The Axis Alliance wasn't signed until 1940 so your point doesn't stand


----------



## Freebird (Jul 12, 2009)

stasoid said:


> Do you see another way of winning a Total War against Nazi Germany other then physically destroying its army's personell and equipment?


 Yes, by eliminating the means and resources for the enemy to wage war.



stasoid said:


> To my understanding "war effort" can only be measured by the number of evemy troops your army has killed.


It would seem to be a very limited understanding of the concept.
Would it have been better to refuse the Italian surrender? {and subsequent joining of the allied cause} By refusing to allow the Italians to join the Allied cause, we could have kept attacking them, thereby boosting the "body count" and achieving a much greater victory... 



stasoid said:


> Let's take for example Battle Of Britain, Luftwaffe lost 1800 aircrafts out of 19.000 Germany produced that year. During the War Germany built 120.000 aircrafts that makes BoB accountable for 1.5% of total Luftwaffe losses.



Your math is screwy, you are comparing losses to total production. How many German aircraft were destroyed in combat, and what % did each of the big three cause? How about what % of German U-boats did each of the Allies cause?



stasoid said:


> Please, dont call me neo-nazi, revisionist or stalinist only because I disagree with that Churchill was the "greatest" leader. Just so you know, I dont think Stalin was either, my opinion of him is something far different from to be called " the greatest".



Fair enough, if you don't have a great opinion of Churchill that's fine.



stasoid said:


> And as for Britain fighting alone untill 41', not entirely true - the soviets already fought Axis forces as early as Spanish Civil War in 1936, then little known Lake Hasan and Battle of Khalkin Gol in 1938-39.



And just exactly how many Nazi soldiers/airmen did the Soviets kill in 38/39?


----------



## Waynos (Jul 12, 2009)

stasoid said:


> Do you see another way of winning a Total War against Nazi Germany other then physically destroying its army's personell and equipment? To my understanding "war effort" can only be measured by the number of evemy troops your army has killed.



Do you really beieve that, or is it a wind up?

The 'war effort' was provided across the allies from all walks of life as well as the military and much of the most important war effort came from the workers in the factories and down the mines who never killed anybody. Your view is just too simplistic for words.

So the total number of German aircraft shot down in the BoB was only a small percentage of the total built over 6 years. So was the percentage of British aircraft shot down only a tiny percentage too. Could it possibly have been any other way? Was not the real point of the 'war effort' at this stage that Great Britain was the *only* nation state taking on Germany militarily, while Russia sat and watched, and through this victory, fought for when suing for peace was seen as the only 'sensible' option generally, enabled the eventual successful conclusion of the war for the allies? Or do you think that British capitualtion in 1940 would have made no ultimate difference? For you are the building blocks of victory so worthless that only the final scores count?


----------



## stasoid (Jul 12, 2009)

_You could equally describe 'war effort' as being an economic measure as a percentage of the GNP, or the number of people you lost to the war. To base it on the number you kill is to my mind stupid. How do you factor in the extermination of the Jews, Gipsies, mentally impared, POW's kept in inhumane conditions civilians killed in air raids_

Read my post, I'm talking about army losses.


_We are still waiting for who you think was the best.
PS Roosevelt get my vote._

Roosevelt was a moral person and a wise man, he gets my vote too.


_And just exactly how many Nazi soldiers/airmen did the Soviets kill in 38/39?_ 

SU supplied 800 planes, 350 tanks an 1500 artillery pieces to Republican Spain. This equipment was mostly operated by soviet "advisers". How many evemy casualties they inflicted is unknown as for the USSR this couldnt be made public at the time.

Battle oh Khalkhin Gol 60.000 Japanise KIA/WIA (soviet claim).


_Great Britain was the *only* nation state taking on Germany militarily, while Russia sat and watched, and through this victory, fought for when suing for peace was seen as the only 'sensible' option generally, enabled the eventual successful conclusion of the war for the allies?_

I guess the soviets were busy preparing for the Winter War with Finland. At that time everyone cared about defense of his own counry first. All Treaties had already been signed and war declared. Nothing could've changed the course of the war. It was too late, unfortunately. I dont think it was Russia's fault that England end up fighting Germany on its own. All soviet pre-war attempts to sign Collective Security with France and Great Britain failed as you know. UK signed Munich Treaty and didnt make a move to stop Germany's agression on Poland in 39, so...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 12, 2009)

Personally, Stasoid, I'm one of those peculiar people who actually believe that if Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin in summer '41, Stalin would have attacked Hitler by October. [No, I'm not buying the Icebreaker theory lock-stock and barrel] I know no other way to explain Soviet losses in the first 7-10 days of Barbarossa -- the Soviets were in offense staging positions with no orders or planning to defend. Stalin did not believe Churchill's "tip" about Barbarossa - date and time. Stalin didn't believe Churchill because: (1) He was paranoid and believed Churchill was trying to suck him in (2) His intelligence showed that Hitler was NOT making plans for a winter war (no buying up of sheep skins or other useful warm materials. (3) Stalin believed in any case that he would spring his offense before Hitler -- and separate Hitler from Romanian OIL and other sources.

So all your rationalizing about Soviet casualties, the Spanish War and Mongolia May-Sept '39 is all beside the point. We don't count Canadian, British, American, UK volunteers in Spain as WW2 casualties -- no exceptions for the Soviets, Stazoid.

FDR was "a very moral leader" - what the hell does that mean -- selling Eastern Europe out post '45 was "moral" ..?

MM


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 12, 2009)

stasoid, I think you need to go back and read your history my friend. The inescapable lesson of every major conflict since at least 1798 is this: it is far more effective to deny your enemy the means of raising and equipping armies than it is to try and defeat thiose armies in the field. That means blockade or aerial bombardment. A few examples:

The Royal Navy did it to Bonaparte between 1798 and 1815, then did it again to Kaiser Bill 1914-18. Bill very nearly did it to the UK in 1917, and Hitler tried again the North Atlantic 1939-45. 

The USA did it to the CSA 1861-1865, and the 8th AF and Bomber Command did it to Hitler 1939-45.

Every one of those campaigns was designed not to kill troops in combat, but to prevent them from ever reaching comabat for want of training and/or equipment. That is how modern war is ultimately won. You starve your enemy then deliver a killing blow when he is on his knees. Blockade duty is never glamourous and only rarely glorious. But it decides wars - of that there can be no doubt.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 12, 2009)

stasoid said:


> [Read my post, I'm talking about army losses.



No, you quite specifically said war effort.


> I guess the soviets were busy preparing for the Winter War with Finland.



Ah yes the threat of mighty Finland, so much easier than fighting Germans, they thought.



> Nothing could've changed the course of the war.



How do you mean? If Britain did not fight in 1940 nothing would have changed?



> I dont think it was Russia's fault that England end up fighting Germany on its own. All soviet pre-war attempts to sign Collective Security with France and Great Britain failed as you know.



Interesting choice of phrase there, makes it sound like Russia were trying. Was it not Russias fault that while the French and British delegates were in Moscow to sign a treaty against Germany, Russia, on 23rd August 1939, signed the non aggression pact with Hitler that effectively gave permission for the invasion of Poland? I think Russia might have been quite culpable there, just as we ourselves were the year before.



> UK signed Munich Treaty and didnt make a move to stop Germany's agression on Poland in 39, so...



But you do know that it was Hitlers aggression on Polan in 1939 that was the reason Britain declared war on Germany Yes? And how did Russia react to this aggression? Oh yes, they piled in too, on the wrong side.


----------



## stasoid (Jul 12, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> stasoid, I think you need to go back and read your history my friend. The inescapable lesson of every major conflict since at least 1798 is this: it is far more effective to deny your enemy the means of raising and equipping armies than it is to try and defeat thiose armies in the field. That means blockade or aerial bombardment. A few examples:
> 
> The Royal Navy did it to Bonaparte between 1798 and 1815, then did it again to Kaiser Bill 1914-18. Bill very nearly did it to the UK in 1917, and Hitler tried again the North Atlantic 1939-45.
> 
> ...




Dont think that would work with Nazi Germany. Fanatical regime fought till the last man was out of ammo as you know from history.

For how long you were going to "blockade" them? For 10? 20 years? In a few years they would've built ICBMs and nukes, you wouldnt have place on Earth to hide.


----------



## stasoid (Jul 12, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Ah yes the threat of mighty Finland, so much easier than fighting Germans, they thought.



Finland hadnt decided which side to take yet by 1940, looked leaning towards the Axis Powers. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. Winter War is a shamefull page of Russia's history anyways.


----------



## stasoid (Jul 12, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Interesting choice of phrase there, makes it sound like Russia were trying. Was it not Russias fault that while the French and British delegates were in Moscow to sign a treaty against Germany, Russia, on 23rd August 1939, signed the non aggression pact with Hitler that effectively gave permission for the invasion of Poland? I think Russia might have been quite culpable there, just as we ourselves were the year before.



The soviets made multiple attempts to convince Great Britain and France to sign Collective Security pact against possible agression on Poland from Germany, instead France and UK signed Munich Treaty in 1938 giving Hitler a green light to go Ost.

If this is new to you, here is a quick note from Wiki:

The most active and articulate exponent of collective security during the immediate pre-war years was the Soviet foreign minister Maxim Litvinov, but after the Munich Agreement in September 1938 and Western passivity in the face of German occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 it was shown that the Western Powers were not prepared to engage in collective security against aggression by the Axis Powers together with the Soviet Union, Soviet foreign policy was revised and Litvinov was replaced as foreign minister in early May 1939, in order to facilitate the negotiations that led to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany, signed by Litvinov's successor, Vyacheslav Molotov, on August 23 of that year. The war in Europe broke out a week later, with the German invasion of Poland on September 1.

Collective security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 12, 2009)

"Winter War is a shamefull page of Russia's history anyways.." WHY Stasoid, because it wasn't moral, or because they had the crap kicked out of them ... gained enough territory "to bury their dead".

Explain to me how the Soviets could humiliate Japan in the summer of '39 and be humiliated by the Finns, by Xmas? 

MM


----------



## stasoid (Jul 12, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> It's a good question MM, I dont actually know. Either because of the Finns were strong or the Russians just sucked. The soviets achieved their objectives but the kill ratio was humaliating for them, indeed.
> 
> It was shamefull because it was an unprovoced attack on a de-facto neutral country.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 12, 2009)

stasoid said:


> *Dont think that would work with Nazi Germany*. Fanatical regime fought till the last man was out of ammo as you know from history.
> 
> For how long you were going to "blockade" them? .



Oh, but it did work. The shortage of fuel caused by the blocade greatly hampered the ability of Germant to wage war, it caused the defeat in the Desert, and it was a factor for the decline of the Luftwaffe, as they were short fuel for training. The shortage of other raw materials, from rubber to bauxite, tungsten other metals steadily decreased the Axis ability to maintain the war economy effectivly.



michaelmaltby said:


> Explain to me how the Soviets could humiliate Japan in the summer of '39 and be humiliated by the Finns, by Xmas?
> 
> MM



In both cases the attacker took heavy casualties from a well prepared defender?



But this thread is getting waaaaay off topic, it's about leadership, remember?


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 12, 2009)

stasoid said:


> Dont think that would work with Nazi Germany. Fanatical regime fought till the last man was out of ammo as you know from history.
> 
> For how long you were going to "blockade" them? For 10? 20 years? In a few years they would've built ICBMs and nukes, you wouldnt have place on Earth to hide.



Er, they were blockaded and bombarded from day 1 of WW2 and it worked. Look at the Battle of the Bulge - the offensive failed primarily because it ran out of fuel, fuel which was unavailable because Bomber Command and 8th AF were levelling Germany's POL infrastructure while 2nd TAF and other elements hammered the distribution network. That was 1944, so your vision of a 10 year blockade seems a bit exaggerated. And as you should know from history, the Nazi regime did no such thing as 'fight till the last man was out of ammo'. They did put up a highly spririted defence of their homeland, but were not as fanatical as you suggest. I suggest you drop some of the hyperbole and prove to me that the Allied blockade and bombardment of Germany had no effect on her ability to wage the war - and show me some estimate of when Germany would have had an ICBM with a nuclear warhead ready for use. I bet it's long after the means to deploy and launch it have ceased to exist


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2009)

freebird said:


> But this thread is getting waaaaay off topic, it's about leadership, remember?



Respond to my remarks about the air force leadership.

Your opinions?


----------



## stasoid (Jul 12, 2009)

We're going off topic, agreed. I better keep my mouth shut for a while.

Last comment, promise.

Just imagine: no Eastern Front, no landing in Sicily, no D-Day, just air raids and blockade from the sea. You bomb them at night with your pre-historic B-17s, they launch few hundreds V2 rockets on London per month. Who will give up and surrender first? 
They are not under pressure from the east, can relax and focus on creating new wonderweapons. Two years later their V-rockets can reach New-York, 5 years - LA. Me-262 night fighters just a matter of time. Nuclear-powered U-boats next... Will you continue your blockade in these conditions, or you will start fighting face to face?


_Er, they were blockaded and bombarded from day 1 of WW2 and it worked. Look at the Battle of the Bulge - the offensive failed primarily because it ran out of fuel, fuel which was unavailable because Bomber Command and 8th AF were levelling Germany's POL infrastructure while 2nd TAF and other elements hammered the distribution network_

They ran out of fuel because Soviets took Romanian oil fields 5 month earlier.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 13, 2009)

stasoid said:


> They ran out of fuel because Soviets took Romanian oil fields 5 month earlier.



You're absolutely right if you combine it with the Allied bombing of the synthetic fuel factories. All parties contributed to the defeat of Germany. People in the west tend to ignore the Russian part (cold war thinking is hard to shake off after 40 years, I think ). The Russian fight was the biggest drain on German resources and manpower during the war and was paramount in the defeat of the Nazi's. Because of them and the other Allied countries, I was able to grow up in a free country. I think we should acknowledge that. 
It's a sad thing that the Russians replaced one dictator with another in Eastern Europe and I feel slightly guilty towards these people for me having grown up in freedom, while they suffered under communist regime.

Still I think FDR didn't "sell" Eastern Europe. It was the only sensible thing to do. A war against Russia would have ended in many more years of conflict in a war-tired world. One thatmight not have necessary been won by the Western Allies. We Europeans might all have spoken Russian by now.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jul 13, 2009)

stasoid said:


> The soviets made multiple attempts to convince Great Britain and France to sign Collective Security pact against possible agression on Poland from Germany, instead France and UK signed Munich Treaty in 1938 giving Hitler a green light to go Ost.



Do not confuse Czecholosvakia with Poland. More precisely, giving Hitler a "green light" to take the Sudatenland. I remind you that Poland also partook in Munich 1938, taking Eastern Silesia for herself. The Poles were quite pleased with the results of this treaty.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 13, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Still I think FDR didn't "sell" Eastern Europe. It was the only sensible thing to do. A war against Russia would have ended in many more years of conflict in a war-tired world. One thatmight not have necessary been won by the Western Allies. We Europeans might all have spoken Russian by now.


I get what your saying, and the western allies were tired, but if there ever was a time to defeat the Soviets it was in 1945. They barely took Berlin and the casualties that occured were extreme. After such a horrific war, maybe the west didn't have the heart as much as they had the ability to save Eastern Europe from bondage. One can't blame the leaders though. Nobody wanted to keep fighting.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 13, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Respond to my remarks about the air force leadership.
> 
> Your opinions?



OK, but let's first agree on what criteria make a "Great Leader"

For Strategic Leader: {eg Nimitz, Brooke, Arnold}
Operations Planning
Deployments
Command appointments
Advise Political leaders if plans are unrealistic, suggest alternatives
Sending balanced forces to all areas


Tactical Leadership {eg Patton, Morshead, Slim}
Best use of Available forces
Reaction to unexpected circumstances
Reduction of avoidable casualties
Best tactics to accomplish the mission


Care to add some more criteria?

In both cases, the best candidates took actions that couldn't have been done by another. In general, the tactical leader is given a job to do with certain forces, and expected to make the most of what he has.
The strategic leader decides on operational plans in the theater, chooses subordinates, and decides on the allocation of forces



syscom3 said:


> As for best AF leader, I would nominate three individuals.
> 
> Hap Arnold who over saw the transformation of the prewar air force that was 3rd rate, into the preeminent AF that no other country could match. Part of his "greatness" was his ability to pick great subordinates for both staff and command. Nearly all of them were kept around for the post war USAF and help build that up.
> 
> ...



To be honest, I don't know enough about Kenney LeMay to make a final choice, what "outstanding" actions did they take in WWII?


----------



## merlin (Jul 13, 2009)

freebird said:


> To be honest, I don't know enough about Kenney LeMay to make a final choice, what "outstanding" actions did they take in WWII?



In that case, my I recommend the:
*'Flying Buccasneers* The Illustrated Story of Kenney's Fifth Air Force' By Steve Birdsall, with an Introduction by General George C Kenney. ISBN: 0 7153 7750 7

An excelent book.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 13, 2009)

> The soviets made multiple attempts to convince Great Britain and France to sign Collective Security pact against possible agression on Poland from Germany, instead France and UK signed Munich Treaty in 1938 giving Hitler a green light to go Ost.



So, you don't think that it was the Non-aggression pact of 23 Aug 1939 that gave the green light to the invasion of Poland ONE WEEK later? Interesting view.

But you and freebird are right, as fascinating as this discourse has become it is off topic and it is a shame to ruin someones carefully thought out thread so we'll leave it there.

It is amazing to see how the events of history are interpreted so differently in different countries though.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 13, 2009)

Waynos "...it is a shame to ruin someones carefully thought out thread so we'll leave it there."  Thanks and it is wobbling a bit but a very interesting thread. 

Stasoid - it troubles me the amount of revisionist material that is being injected into history nowadays - and I'm not singling out you. Things like a renewed efforts by Russia historians to say England and France could have prevented the war if only they had permitted Stalin to take up military positions in Poland in '39. That kind of statement doesn't wash true. Yes - capitulating to Stalin might have stopped Hitler but only by tradingone evil for another. Stalin used the same approach to set the stage for taking over Estonia, Latvia in '39. "We need bases on your land to defend ourselves ... (against Finland)". We know how that worked out. If Russian historians want to do some genuine work instead of trying to suck up to Putin for grant money ... determine why Russia was poised in offense in June 1941. Why Estonians and other Baltic people were deported to Russia just days before Barbarossa (the surprise attack Stalin was fully warned about), and why trains of ore and resources rolled into German territory hours before the first guns fired that night. Was Stalin desperately trying to appease Hitler. Or despite all, did he like FDR know that the Russia people wouldn't fight (Germany) unless seriously provoked?

No one so far has nominated Stalin for political leader, if I'm correct. Are we all so revolted by his tactics..? Russia has a long history of leaders like Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and others, who did absolutely inhuman things but forced their country forward -- kicking and screaming.

BTW - anyone see the Home Box Office made-for-TV movie "Stalin" starring Robert Duvall. I seriously recommend it - think it can be found at Amazon.com.

Chairs,

MM


----------



## Freebird (Jul 13, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Waynos "...it is a shame to ruin someones carefully thought out thread so we'll leave it there."  Thanks and it is wobbling a bit but a very interesting thread.
> 
> MM



Perhaps it should be split? 

It could make TWO interesting topics...


Any thoughts on "leadership criteria"?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 13, 2009)

When I was contemplating this thread I was concerned about how the thread on Country Participation had turned into a bit of a Commonwealth bash ... the thread itself was turning up good material but it was getting personal. With that in mind I appreciated that splitting into political and military leadership might prevent a repeat. But I didn't think further than that as to tactical, strategic etc. and subdivision.

A leader is a leader .... sometimes you recognize a leader immediately, sometimes you don't until the times get tough and someone steps up. A smart leader listens to those around and learns. A bold leader takes chances .. like Cortez burning the ships when his expeition arrived in Mexico. A strong leader is secure and doesn't let jealousy weaken. I'm saying all of this because I wouldn't necessarily split the thread ... I don't think we're irreconcilibly bogged down here .. yet

On the other hand, a split by land, air and sea might open things up though .. 

MM


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 15, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> "Winter War is a shamefull page of Russia's history anyways.." WHY Stasoid, because it wasn't moral, or because they had the crap kicked out of them ... gained enough territory "to bury their dead".
> 
> Explain to me how the Soviets could humiliate Japan in the summer of '39 and be humiliated by the Finns, by Xmas?
> 
> MM



I think General Georgi Zhukov's willingness to take high casualties and stil push on tol win the battle helped defeat the Japanese in 1939. His tactics weren't bad either, he basically surounded the invading force. 

Perhaps the Russian General in charge of invading Finland wasn't as good at fightig.


----------



## diddyriddick (Jul 16, 2009)

Marcel said:


> I don't consider Eisenhower as one of the greatest leaders. He was unable to suppress the ego's of his subordinates like Patton and Montgomery eniough. This led to many extra casualties and disasters like Market Garden. He was a military diplomat. Not outspoken enough, *so all parties would accept him*.



Precisely my point, Marcel. Imagine how fractious the allied high command would have been without a moderating voice on *all* the personalities involved. So if you are going to assign one person to lead the combined allied armies, who would it be? Marshall is out-Roosevelt would never give him up as chief-of-staff. I know of nobody else who had the diplomatic skill to unify that command.

While you are undoubtedly correct that disasters like Market-Garden might have played out decidedly different, if at all, what about allied achievements that were possible because of allied harmony? Would Overlord been possible w/out it? I don't believe it.

I've heard it argued persuasively that Ike had the fault of lacking the necessary combat command experience to be a theater commander, but this is the first time that I've ever heard it argued that his diplomacy was a liability.

Just my two cents....


----------



## parsifal (Jul 16, 2009)

A comparison of the battles fought in the winter war, and those fought at Khalkin Gol and Nomonhan requires some understanding of the factors involved. In the Far East, the Siberian Army had emerged from the purges relatively unscathed....those statistics that you see about 9 out of ten generals being killed etc are not including those that had been assigned to the Far East. I remember reading recently that 8 out of the 9 admirals of the Red Navy were excecuted....and then realized that at least three admirals from the Far East Fleet did not get the chop. So, the material available to the Soviets in the Far East was vastly better led than that in the west. And the results of that are obvious. Whereas in Finland the war was a series of continual bumbling and stuff ups, you see none of that in the battles against the Japanese. The officers in that theatre were experienced soldiers, and it showed. Zhukov was one of those soldiers

Incidentally, Zhukov was not profligate with either lives or materiel in this battle. According to Wiki...."Casualty estimates vary widely: Some sources say the Japanese suffered 45,000 or more soldiers killed with Russian casualties of at least 17,000. The Japanese officially reported 8,440 killed and 8,766 wounded, while the Russians initially claimed 9,284 total casualties. It is likely that figures published at the time were reduced for propaganda purposes. In recent years, with the opening of the Soviet archives, a more accurate assessment of Soviet casualties has emerged from the work of Grigoriy Krivosheev, citing 7,974 killed and 15,251 wounded."

In the air, the Japanese did better, with modern research indicating the loss of 88 aircraft to the Soviet 225. This battle saw the first use of the Russian RS-82 Rockets, and the first use of Bacteriological weapons by the Japanese

Returning to the issues as to why the battles in Siberia went better, the second glaringly obvious reason was the weather.....the battles at Khalkin Gol (which is the Khalkin River in English) were fought in clear, dry, Summer weather,, whereas the Battles in Finland were fought in the dead of winter. In Finland, the Soviets were short of winter clothes and equipment, their ski troops barely knew how to ski, and troops literally froze by the thousand. The cold was the cause of the vast majority of casualties for the Russians. They foundered in exactly the same way as the Germans did two years later, when they too were caught by General Winter unprepared. It should come as no surprise that the Soviets were cut to pieces the same as the Germans

The next major issues was one of supply. Whilst supply was short in Khalkin Gol for the Russians, they were relatively close to their supply heads (about 100 miles, whereas the japanese were operating over 450 miles from their depots). The Russians managed to pool over 25000 trucks and cut roads to the battle, whereas the Japanese were forced to try and rely on completely inadequate horse drawn supply. This had a major effect on the combat effectiveness of the respective armies.

In the Finn war, the reverse was true, the Finns were operating relatively close to their supply heads, whilst the Soviets were not. The Finn formations remained in supply, whilst the Soviet supply system broke down completely. Without supply, in the cold, you die...end of story

Lastly a word needs to be said about the Finns themsleves. The Finns were the masters of forest warfare....it was their home, and they tended to know it in detail. This allowed them to set up repeated ambushes that destroyed many Soviet formations. This advantage was not given to the invading Japanese, who were fighting without local knowledge, and without any forest skills to speak of.

There is one other terrain feature to note....parts of the Finn lines were fortified (the Mannerheim Line) which gave the outnumbered Finns a further advantage. The Japanese were on the attack, and therefore did not have the advantage of fortifications.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 16, 2009)

diddyriddick said:


> Precisely my point, Marcel. Imagine how fractious the allied high command would have been without a moderating voice on *all* the personalities involved. So if you are going to assign one person to lead the combined allied armies, who would it be? Marshall is out-Roosevelt would never give him up as chief-of-staff. I know of nobody else who had the diplomatic skill to unify that command.
> 
> While you are undoubtedly correct that disasters like Market-Garden might have played out decidedly different, if at all, what about allied achievements that were possible because of allied harmony? Would Overlord been possible w/out it? I don't believe it.
> 
> ...



Diplomacy doen't make you a good leader. A good leader knows when to use his stripes, especially with subordinates like Montgomery and Patton.
Another point against him is that he tended to lead by remote control, staying behind in his HQ at Granvile, far from the front. A difficult task with the ruined communication lines ad rapidly moving fronts of September 1944.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 16, 2009)

Parsifal ... I agree totally with your analysis re: Khalkin Gol-Nomonhan and the Winter War. Several years ago I struggled through Alvin Coocke's (Sp?) massive volume "Nomonhan" - way more detail (from Japanese POV) than I could absorb but I remember a reference to the decision that Stalin made to put Zhukov totally in charge without the usual political commissar overlord-boss (to second guess and intimidate). The serving commissar was instructed to stay east of the battle area and butt out ... and he was a long serving senior party official. That decision in itself gave Zhukov an authority and freedom to command that was out-of-character for the USSR.

My question to Stasoid about the 2 wars was largely rhetorical.

MM


----------



## DBII (Jul 16, 2009)

GREAT THREAD 

DBII


----------



## renrich (Jul 26, 2009)

Interesting side note on WW2 leaders, Nimitz-CincPac, Eisenhower-SHAEF, both born in Texas. Must have been something in the water.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 26, 2009)

renrich said:


> Interesting side note on WW2 leaders, Nimitz-CincPac, Eisenhower-SHAEF, both born in Texas. Must have been something in the water.



Gen. Marshall was born in Pennsylvania.

Gen. Spaatz was born in Pennsylvania.

Gen. Arnold was born in Pennsylvania.

Must have been something in the water.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 26, 2009)

merlin said:


> In that case, my I recommend the:
> *'Flying Buccasneers* The Illustrated Story of Kenney's Fifth Air Force' By Steve Birdsall, with an Introduction by General George C Kenney. ISBN: 0 7153 7750 7
> 
> An excelent book.



I have that book. A great addition to anyones library.


----------



## renrich (Jul 27, 2009)

Or maybe it was the whiskey in Penn. LOL


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 27, 2009)

renrich said:


> Or maybe it was the whiskey in Penn. LOL



Yes!


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello Parsifal
I disagree with some of your comments on Winter War.
First of all the main battle front was at Karelia Isthmus, where front was at the end of war some 75-125km from one of the biggest armament and munitions production areas of the world, namely Leningrad. And from Leningrad to frontline run 2-3 railway lines and numerous roads. There was some difficulties at the end of the war to get supplies through to the frontline but that was because Soviets had crammed into the isthmus 730.000-760.000men, 114.000 horses, 40.000 lorries, 5.000 tractors 5329 guns, 2620 tanks and 490 armoured cars and the frontline was only 125km long and the isthmus was some 66km wide at its narrowest point near Leningrad. 

Those Corpses attacking between Lake Ladoga and Lake Onega on the other hand could only use the rather limited the road network and the roads run through dense forests. And Finnish attacks through those forests cut off 2 Soviet divs and one Tank Brigade.

More Northern Soviet attacks were usually divisional attacks along a road or two and with exceptions of the 2 most northern attacks these were stopped 30-70km from the border and cut to small encirclements along the roads by Finnish forces attacking from surrendering forests. So the question wasn’t the distance from supply bases but the fact that Finns cut off the supply roads. And it wasn’t easy for Finns either, because those troops guarding those road blocks must have been supplied through the forests. The level of winter equipment in Soviet divs varied, for ex the 44 Div from Ukraine which was encircled along Raate Road was badly clad but 54 Div, encircled along Kuhmo road was very well equipped for winter warfare.

I cannot recall why the Soviet div (122) attacking through Salla began fast withdrawal after hard fight around Pelkosenniemi, some 150km from the border. It took defensive positions W of Salla, some 70 km from the border. They might have encountered some supply problems but maybe only info on what was happening to other divisions further south compelled they to withdraw to less exposed position. 52 Div which attacked through Petsamo from Barents Sea coast might have suffered from supply problems but those were partly caused by actions of Finnish ski patrols.

And I doubted that cold was the major killer during the Winter War, frosbites accounted some 4,5% of Soviet casualties and clear majority of troops and most casualties happened in Karelia Isthmus where there was no encirclements and fighting was normal with clear frontline and Leningrad with its hospitals was near. 

The success of Finns depended on that Finns were very highly motivated and skillfull forest fighters and individual soldiers, who had developed excellent tactical doctrine well suited for our environment. But because Soviet Union had so overwhelming numerical superiority it could loose some divisions in Northern Sectors and strategically those attacks worked, they surprised Finns because Finns had not foreseen the use of so powerful forces there and Finns had to move some of their reserves there and so they were away from the main operational area, the Karelia Isthmus, at the end of the war Finns had there only some 100.000 men and 333 guns, so odds were overwhelming because Finnish troops were tired and suffered from arty and mortar ammo shortages. Also the encircled Soviet troops fought on stubbornly and so many Finns were tied to guard and to smash those encirclements. Finns had not foreseen the stubborn defence of encirclements and had not enough firepower to pulverize them and had to use storm troop tactics to destroy them bit by bit.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jul 28, 2009)

Thanks Juha, I accept your corrections, and very interesting by the way


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 29, 2009)

I agree, great posts Juha!


----------



## Waynos (Jul 29, 2009)

> Those Corpses attacking between Lake Ladoga and Lake Onega could use 2 railway lines but the road network was more limited and the roads run through dense forests. And Finnish attacks through those forests cut off 2 Soviet divs and one Tank Brigade.



It took me a couple of goes at this sentence to realise it was a language thing, I was thinking 'CORPSES????' it raised a very odd image in my mind, and an idea for a horror/war crossover movie  Then I realised my mistake.

great post though Juha, very informative.


----------



## Juha (Jul 29, 2009)

Thanks guys
Hello Waynos, I also saw the two meanings but because Soviets first use one army there and later deployed an other as reinforcement there I decided to use the term.

Being an off-topic subject I tried to be as brief as possible so only general lines. One thing I want to emphasize is that the Soviets were not hopelessly tied on roads. They also often tried to outflank Finns by marching through the forests and suddenly appeared behind Finnish lines. But usually Finns won those sudden bloody engagements. And there were cases when Finns, remembering to do time to time unexpected things, attacked along a road while Soviets were trying to outflank them through forests. So Soviets knew how to fight in forests but were still not the level of Finns on flexibility and individual combat skills.

OK, if we want to continue the Winter War subject, it will be better to open a new thread on the subject.

Juha


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 29, 2009)

"...stopped 30-70km from the border and cut to small encirclements along the roads by Finnish forces attacking from surrendering forests .." Called "log piles" by the Finns, I believe.

MM


----------



## Juha (Jul 29, 2009)

Hello Michael
Absolutely correct, to be exact we called them motti, which is 1m x 1m x 1m ie a cubic metre pile of logs.

I corrected a mistake in my message #107, between Lake Ladoga and Lake Onega there were no rail connection between Soviet Union and Finland in 1939, the railroad between Suvilahti and the border was built by Soviets sometimes in 1940-41 and Uuksu-Mäkriä railroad was built by Finns in 1942-43.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2009)

A question we wil never know, but makes me wonder....how would Zhukov and his Siberians have faired in the Finnish war....especially if they were issued proper winter clothing.

I still think the Finns would have been superior, but perhaps there might have been a somewhat more imaginative approach to the problem by the Siberians....


----------



## Juha (Jul 30, 2009)

Hello Parcifal
Of course we’ll never know but.
Chuikov of Stalingrad fame became the commander of 9.A on 22.12.39 and after that happened the catastrophes of 44. Div and 54. MountainDiv which belonged to his army. And 54. was a division whose peacetime base was in Soviet Karelia, so it was used to the environment and was well equipped for the winter. It lost some 50% of its manpower but it fought very stubbornly and some of the encirclements hold out until the peace came. And as I wrote, Soviets achieved surprises at the beginning of the war. For ex at Juntusranta, which was defended by a platoon, the attacking force, which had built a winter road to border totally unnoticed by Finns, consisted most of 163. Div. Its third regiment attacked some 60 km more south along the Raate road, where Finns had an independent battalion. Finns had expected a regimental attack there but the attack to Juntusranta was a full shock. When the platoon commander informed that he was under attack by at least of a battalion, he was told to calm down and not to send alarmist reports.

So the attack plan was not unimaginative and the Soviet topographical intelligence was good, at least once in the Karelian Isthmus Soviet turned a flank of a delaying position by using paths unknown to Finnish Army.

BTW I found out that Soviets completed the railroad between Suvilahti and the border on 13.3.40, which was the date of ceasefire. Suvilahti was connected to Finnish railnetwork.

Juha


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 31, 2009)

Great insights, Juha. I have the greatest admiration for the Finns. Your country seems to always dodge the victim-mentality-bullet by making lemonade when you get handed lemons. 

MM


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 31, 2009)

I don't know how Stalin felt after being pounded so much by the Finns, but I bet he wasn't happy.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 31, 2009)

Oh I'm sure a few heads rolled, literaly.

I watched a special on the Winter War about a month ago and it mentioned the Finns kept targeting the mobile kitchens used to feed the soviet troops. That is just brilliant.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 31, 2009)

"That is just brilliant..." 

You're right Viking ... the Finns were absolutely in their element.

Juha - why don't you start a thread on Finland and the wars - not just the Winter War but The Continuance War as well..?

There is much to learn ... during Continuance, fighting beside the Germans, (I have been told), several Jewish Finns were awarded the Iron Cross by German senior command in theatre ... can you confirm or deny that urban legend, Juha .. I'm curious....

During Winter War the Finns - great pulp and paper people - spread cellophane on open water to make it look frozen ... again Juha, is that just a myth ...

And when you'd come back from the bloody fight with the Russians - home was a bunker blasted into the frozen earth - lined in fresh spruce boughs and covered in layers of tree trunks .... warm, dry, secure, concealed.  Winter is actually a very good time to fight - if you know the terrain.

By all means .. attack the soup wagons 

MM


----------



## Juha (Aug 1, 2009)

Hello Michael
Quote:” Juha - why don't you start a thread on Finland and the wars - not just the Winter War but The Continuance War as well..?”

The reason is lack of time.

Quote:” during Continuance, fighting beside the Germans, (I have been told), several Jewish Finns were awarded the Iron Cross by German senior command in theatre ... can you confirm or deny that urban legend, Juha”

At least one junior Jewish Finnish army officer got a Iron Cross, it’s long time ago when I read/heard on the story, but IIRC he got the medal for rescuing some Waffen-SS soldiers (so the combat happened in Northern Finland where 6th SS Div operated) but he declined to take the IC.

Quote:” During Winter War the Finns - great pulp and paper people - spread cellophane on open water to make it look frozen ... again Juha, is that just a myth ...”

I cannot recall, but that doesn’t prove anything, I have forgot much of what I have read on Winter and Continuation Wars. But both sides used many trick, so possible.

Qute:” And when you'd come back from the bloody fight with the Russians - home was a bunker blasted into the frozen earth - lined in fresh spruce boughs and covered in layers of tree trunks .... warm, dry, secure, concealed. Winter is actually a very good time to fight - if you know the terrain.”

Actually IIRC Finns usually used pickaxes, iron bars and shovels, and it was hard work. IIRC Finns usually lived in “korsus” ie earth and log shelters in Karelian Isthmus and in tents in North where there was more movements. At the beginning Finns did not have enough canvas tents, in fact there was general lack of anything from boots and uniforms to shells and fuzes, but our pulp industry then produced tents made on paper/cardboard, not very durable solution but better than nothing.

In fact Soviets were much eager diggers, Finns said that if one gave 15minutes for consolidate their gains to Soviets they had in that time dig good positions and were already shovelling earth over two tiers log overhead protection. 

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Aug 1, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Parsifal
> 
> 
> 
> And I doubted that cold was the major killer during the Winter War, frosbites accounted some 4,5% of Soviet casualties .



Hi Juha
I doesnt surprise me that frostbite accounted for such a small percentage of casualties. However frostbite is not the only cold related casualty that can occur. The two biggest killers that I can think of are hypothermia and exposure. 

Taking into account all cold related casualties, the proportion of losses due to these causes is likley to climb greatly. I am trying to find more precise figures to the ones I have, but you might already have some....


----------



## Juha (Aug 2, 2009)

Hello Parsifal
I doubt that anybody knowns the number of those died in hypothermia and exposure.

And I really doubt that hypothermia and exposure were great killers in the Karelian Isthmus, were heaviest casualties happened in absolute numbers. Without doubt some unrecovered wounded died in exposure/hypothermia but it is difficult to say how many of them would have died anyway. And few late recovered wounded were probably saved by cold, because human bled less in cold, that phenomenon saved a few Finns also. 

Between Lake Ladoga and Barents Sea. Encircled Soviet troops lived in covered dugouts. And anyway encircled troops without adequate resupply were stormed, surrendered, run out of ammo or run out of food/water sooner or later. That is a hard truth of siege warfare and had been for thousands of years. Cold only accelerate the food problem because of human needs more energy in cold weather. Almost all Soviet citizens knew what harsh winter means so they did not have many of the problems Germans had during winter 41/42. Undoubtedly there were cases of hypothermia and exposure in encirclements but I doubt that in significant numbers. After all the greatest losses were suffered by 54. Mountain Div which was the best equipped div for winter of the encircled divs and whose men were used to the climate. So IMHO the losses were decided more by the tactical situation than climate. IMHO maybe greatest number of hypothermia and exposure happened during the break outs. If one got lost in the forest situation was rather desperate. On the other hand it was more difficult to lost contact with your comrades because the route they had used was rather easy to find because of snow. And it was easy to catch them because going was much harder at the front of the column than at the rear of it. 

Juha


----------

