Ww2 mvp

that isnt what this thread is about. everyone in here realizes that these old, and often crippled, men didnt actually fight. they didnt crack codes themselves. they coordinated. they prioritized. made gigantic decisions. organized resources in one place, rather than others. eg put alan turing to work cracking codes, instead of on something else.

the same way that coach K doesnt actually play for the duke basketball team. so he doesnt deserve shit for credit right? no. where would the duke players be without his recruiting and direction? not in the ncaa tournament probably.

if you want a thread about individual mvp's, or about who had the best spy service, the best soldiers....make it. this one is about mv leaders.

still, he didn't do shit. it didn't matter who was UK's prime minister, with RAF and the Royal Navy around, there was no way the german would have invaded the isles. and once the USSR and the USA entered the war, it was all said and done.
 
still, he didn't do shit. it didn't matter who was UK's prime minister, with RAF and the Royal Navy around, there was no way the german would have invaded the isles. and once the USSR and the USA entered the war, it was all said and done.

idk, chamberlain might not have used any of that, or pushed for the development of the spitfire, until the nazis were in london.
 
It's Stalin without question.

Stalin miscalculated badly in not expecting Germany to attack him, but he did many things to win the war:

1) After killing all his good army officers in the 1930s, he released many talented ones from prison and gave them commands based on results: generals such as Zukhov (who is popularly said to have never lost a battle), Rokossovsy, Koniev, Chiukov all enjoyed Stalin's favour. He sometimes, early in the war, put cronies in command but always sacked them after they failed (Budenny, Meklis, Timoshenko etc)

2) He moved Soviet industry east when the Germans over-ran Russia's industrial heartland. This decision cannot be over-emphasised. He put whole factories on trains and moved them to the Russian interior where the Germans couldn;t bomb them. Russia won the war with the sheer output from these factories- but it was a big risk because Russia had little with which to fight the Germans for a year while the factories were moved.

3) Stalin's brutality was most effective in getting production rates up, technical problems solved, and so on. Factories with bad performances had their managers replaced, or sometimes jailed. This system was not 'nice' to the Western mind, but it was an effective way of solving very real problems, quickly. He also realised when this went too far: the Russian army had 'political commissars' attached, whose job had been to ensure the 'reliability' of commanding officers. This had detrimental effects in combat and Stalin reduced their power so soldiers could fight properly.

4) Stalin was reasonably effective at knowing when to interfere and when not to. He was instrumental in making decisions which prevented the Germans capturing Leningrad, he agreed with holding back reinforcements for Stalingrad- thus the Germans were drawn in thinking they were always on the brink of victory, then the forces were unleashed in a huge counterblow. He took an interest in weapons but, unlike Hitler, allowed the designers and soldiers to have the most influence.

5) Stalin was effective in pressuring the British and Americans for material support, and the need to support Russia influenced many decisions by the Western allies. Stalin also raised armies of nationals from other countries- Polish, Czechs etc- augmenting his strength.

By the last 2 years of the war the Russians were fighting very well: it wasn't just Winter and Hitler's stupidity that lost the war. Russian tanks and, later, planes were better than those of the West, and their tactics developed over the years until Stalin had excellent generals commanding an efficient and capable army.

A long but good read:

When World War II ended in 1945 few doubted that the victor
 
It's Stalin without question.

Stalin miscalculated badly in not expecting Germany to attack him, but he did many things to win the war:

1) After killing all his good army officers in the 1930s, he released many talented ones from prison and gave them commands based on results: generals such as Zukhov (who is popularly said to have never lost a battle), Rokossovsy, Koniev, Chiukov all enjoyed Stalin's favour. He sometimes, early in the war, put cronies in command but always sacked them after they failed (Budenny, Meklis, Timoshenko etc)

2) He moved Soviet industry east when the Germans over-ran Russia's industrial heartland. This decision cannot be over-emphasised. He put whole factories on trains and moved them to the Russian interior where the Germans couldn;t bomb them. Russia won the war with the sheer output from these factories- but it was a big risk because Russia had little with which to fight the Germans for a year while the factories were moved.

3) Stalin's brutality was most effective in getting production rates up, technical problems solved, and so on. Factories with bad performances had their managers replaced, or sometimes jailed. This system was not 'nice' to the Western mind, but it was an effective way of solving very real problems, quickly. He also realised when this went too far: the Russian army had 'political commissars' attached, whose job had been to ensure the 'reliability' of commanding officers. This had detrimental effects in combat and Stalin reduced their power so soldiers could fight properly.

4) Stalin was reasonably effective at knowing when to interfere and when not to. He was instrumental in making decisions which prevented the Germans capturing Leningrad, he agreed with holding back reinforcements for Stalingrad- thus the Germans were drawn in thinking they were always on the brink of victory, then the forces were unleashed in a huge counterblow. He took an interest in weapons but, unlike Hitler, allowed the designers and soldiers to have the most influence.

5) Stalin was effective in pressuring the British and Americans for material support, and the need to support Russia influenced many decisions by the Western allies. Stalin also raised armies of nationals from other countries- Polish, Czechs etc- augmenting his strength.

By the last 2 years of the war the Russians were fighting very well: it wasn't just Winter and Hitler's stupidity that lost the war. Russian tanks and, later, planes were better than those of the West, and their tactics developed over the years until Stalin had excellent generals commanding an efficient and capable army.

A long but good read:

When World War II ended in 1945 few doubted that the victor
 
I have no idea what the actual criteria for MVP are, nor how those would transfer to WW2, but most of those guys seem more to be coaches than players. I'm going with von Manstein. Such discussions are always a lot of hypotheticals and asymetric comparisons, but it's easier to make a good argument for him being the best general than anybody else.
 
Well like i said Soviets achievements are not Stalins, he was a bad leader. I cant correct you, because you are right. But Stalin is not SU, when it comes to winning war etc, but he is SU when it comes to all the bad stuff, because he was an incompetent psychopath... hope it makes sense.

PS: am not eastern front expert either :p



I actually have to apologize for saying you are anti-russian, that was idiotic of me, i just realized that.

And i totally agree with you on Stalin, but i disagree with you on everything else. I commented on your post in another thread where i made counter-arguments on things that you have written on your posts in general, i would rather not type them again. :icon_chee

Apology accepted.:)
 
It's Stalin without question.

Stalin miscalculated badly in not expecting Germany to attack him, but he did many things to win the war:

1) After killing all his good army officers in the 1930s, he released many talented ones from prison and gave them commands based on results: generals such as Zukhov (who is popularly said to have never lost a battle), Rokossovsy, Koniev, Chiukov all enjoyed Stalin's favour. He sometimes, early in the war, put cronies in command but always sacked them after they failed (Budenny, Meklis, Timoshenko etc)

2) He moved Soviet industry east when the Germans over-ran Russia's industrial heartland. This decision cannot be over-emphasised. He put whole factories on trains and moved them to the Russian interior where the Germans couldn;t bomb them. Russia won the war with the sheer output from these factories- but it was a big risk because Russia had little with which to fight the Germans for a year while the factories were moved.

3) Stalin's brutality was most effective in getting production rates up, technical problems solved, and so on. Factories with bad performances had their managers replaced, or sometimes jailed. This system was not 'nice' to the Western mind, but it was an effective way of solving very real problems, quickly. He also realised when this went too far: the Russian army had 'political commissars' attached, whose job had been to ensure the 'reliability' of commanding officers. This had detrimental effects in combat and Stalin reduced their power so soldiers could fight properly.

4) Stalin was reasonably effective at knowing when to interfere and when not to. He was instrumental in making decisions which prevented the Germans capturing Leningrad, he agreed with holding back reinforcements for Stalingrad- thus the Germans were drawn in thinking they were always on the brink of victory, then the forces were unleashed in a huge counterblow. He took an interest in weapons but, unlike Hitler, allowed the designers and soldiers to have the most influence.

5) Stalin was effective in pressuring the British and Americans for material support, and the need to support Russia influenced many decisions by the Western allies. Stalin also raised armies of nationals from other countries- Polish, Czechs etc- augmenting his strength.

By the last 2 years of the war the Russians were fighting very well: it wasn't just Winter and Hitler's stupidity that lost the war. Russian tanks and, later, planes were better than those of the West, and their tactics developed over the years until Stalin had excellent generals commanding an efficient and capable army.

A long but good read:

When World War II ended in 1945 few doubted that the victor’s laurels belonged mainly to Joseph Stalin. Under his leadership the Soviet Union had just won the war of the century, and that victory was closely identified with his role as the country’s supreme commander.

World War II was a global conflict of immense proportions in which 50 million people died, but at its heart was the epic struggle between Stalin and Hitler on the Eastern Front. The war began with Hitler’s attack on Poland in September 1939 and was followed by the stunning German defeat of France in summer 1940. Not until June 1941 did Hitler launch his invasion of the Soviet Union—a state that posed a strategic threat to German domination of Europe as well as being an ideological rival and racial enemy.

At first all went well for Operation Barbarossa—the codename for the German invasion—as Hitler’s armies penetrated deep into Russia, reaching the outskirts of Leningrad and Moscow by the end of 1941. In 1942, however, the Soviets turned the tables on the Germans and won a great victory at Stalingrad that spelled doom for the Wehrmacht. In 1943 and 1944 the Red Army expelled the Germans from the rest of Russia and then began an invasion of Germany that culminated in the capture of Berlin in May 1945.

Eighty per cent of all the combat of World War II took place on the Eastern Front. During the four years of the Soviet–German struggle the Red Army destroyed 600 enemy divisions (Italian, Hungarian, Romanian, Finnish, Croat, Slovak and Spanish as well as German). The Germans suffered ten million casualties (75% of their total wartime losses), including three million dead, while Hitler’s Axis allies lost another million. The Red Army destroyed 48,000 enemy tanks, 167,000 guns and 77,000 aircraft. In comparison, the contribution of Stalin’s western allies to the defeat of Germany was of secondary importance. Even after the Anglo-American invasion of France in June 1944 there were still twice as many German soldiers serving on the Eastern Front as in the West. On the other hand, Britain and the United States did supply a huge quantity of material aid to the USSR that greatly facilitated the Soviet victory over Germany.

Even so, victory did not come cheap. Red Army casualties totalled sixteen million, including eight million dead (three million in German POW camps). Adding to the attrition was the death of sixteen million Soviet civilians. Among these were a million Soviet Jews, executed by the Germans in 1941–2 at the beginning of the Holocaust. Material damage to the Soviet Union was equally staggering: six million houses, 98,000 farms, 32,000 factories, 82,000 schools, 43,000 libraries, 6,000 hospitals, and thousands of miles of roads and railways were destroyed. In total, the Soviet Union lost 25% of its national wealth and 14% of its population as a direct result of the war.

When the Red Army captured Berlin, the full extent of Soviet war damage was far from clear, but there was no doubt that the Soviets had fought a brutal war against a barbaric enemy and that the cost had been astronomical. Some saw the Soviet victory as pyrrhic—a victory won at too great a cost. Others worried that German domination of Europe had been replaced by a Soviet and communist threat to the continent. But for most people in the allied world, Stalin’s victory—whatever the costs and problems it brought—was preferable to Hitler’s dream of a global racist empire. Stalin was widely seen as Europe’s saviour from this fate, and when in June 1945 he was proclaimed ‘generalissimus’—the superlative general—it seemed only appropriate.

Stalin shared the military glory with his generals—above all with his deputy supreme commander, Marshal Georgi Zhukov—but Stalin’s role was political and economic as well as military. As supreme commander Stalin decided on military strategy and supervised all the big battles and operations. As People’s Commissar for Defence and chairman of the State Defence Council he was responsible for the country’s mobilisation for total war. As head of government Stalin represented the USSR at summit meetings with its British and American allies and corresponded on a regular basis with Winston Churchill and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As leader of the Communist Party it fell to him to rally the Soviet people for a patriotic war of national defence.

Stalin’s public image was that of a benign dictator, and hopes were high that his regime would evolve into a more liberal and democratic state. But it was no secret that he was a ruthless dictator who presided over an authoritarian communist state that terrorised its own people. During the war the harshest discipline was imposed, and Stalin brooked no wavering in the face of the enemy: some 170,000 Soviet military personnel were executed for treason, cowardice or ill discipline. Whole communities and ethnic groups, accused of collective collaboration with the enemy, were uprooted and deported. At the end of the war millions of returning Soviet POWS were screened for disloyalty, and a quarter of a million of them were executed or re-imprisoned. Needless to say, there was no mercy for the million Soviet citizens who had fought on the German side.

At the time much of this repression remained hidden, and public attention focused on Stalin’s image as a highly successful and very effective war leader. The contemporary impression was summed up by one of his earliest biographers, Isaac Deutscher, writing in 1948:

‘Many allied visitors who called at the Kremlin during the war were astonished to see on how many issues, great and small, military, political or diplomatic, Stalin took the final decision. He was in effect his own commander-in-chief, his own minister of defence, his own quartermaster, his own minister of supply, his own foreign minister, and even his own chef de protocol . . . Thus he went on, day after day, throughout four years of hostilities—a prodigy of patience, tenacity, and vigilance, almost omnipresent, almost omniscient.’

continued: http://www.historyireland.com/20th-...ns-victory-the-soviet-union-and-world-war-ii/

There is no doubt that the Red Army from '44 - '45 was a perfect example of Military Darwinism. The weak, stupid or just unlucky soldiers, from the front line troops to the Generals, had been killed off. What was left was battle-hardened veterans. Well equipped, highly motivated and led by excellent generals.

It's also not open for debate that had America not been drawn into the war in late '42, the Red Army would not have lasted long enough for such a transformation to take place.
 
Exactly. The War was won by all three of the major Allies. If Britain had capitulated after Dunkirk, the Nazis would have been able to free huge numbers of troops from North Africa and Italy. And without the North Atlantic Convoys, the Lend Lease would not have reached the Soviets. If the Russians had not been able to sustain massive losses and keep fighting, the Nazis would have probably been able to repel the D Day Landings. And without American soldiers, and much more importantly, the limitless manufacturing capabilities of American Industry, the UK and Russia would not have been able to defeat the Nazis.

The UK, the Soviet Union and America each share the glory.

The US did the producing, and the Soviets did the dying.
Without Lend lease, the Soviets would have gone under in 42 or so. The Germans would then be able to industrialize and consolidate their holdings. Which would make D-Day impossible.
 
LOL, just the total crap I would expect to hear on a western MMA forum talking politics.

Possibly as high as 93% of casualties for the Germans took place on the Eastern Front yet the WW2 MVP will come from the West.

Go figure. LOL.

Sounds like you are bitter about the Cold War, brah.
 
from what i understand about the eastern front, stalin basically just threw waves of people at the nazis. he also used napoleon's scorched earth tactic, which was pretty cool, but nothing most people couldnt have done.

correct me if im wrong. im certainly no expert on the eastern front.

Not true, they did not use human wave assaults. They did do a lot of counter attacks that were wasteful. But prolly not the kind you are thinking of.

They used scorched earth against Napoleon and the Germans and AH in WWI as well.
 
There is no doubt that the Red Army from '44 - '45 was a perfect example of Military Darwinism. The weak, stupid or just unlucky soldiers, from the front line troops to the Generals, had been killed off. What was left was battle-hardened veterans. Well equipped, highly motivated and led by excellent generals.

It's also not open for debate that had America not been drawn into the war in late '42, the Red Army would not have lasted long enough for such a transformation to take place.

Actually the quality of the infantry decreased well into 1944, as they just siffered too many losses. While the artillery got better from 42.
 
The US did the producing, and the Soviets did the dying.
Without Lend lease, the Soviets would have gone under in 42 or so. The Germans would then be able to industrialize and consolidate their holdings. Which would make D-Day impossible.

id agree with that. the british did the sneaking and the fooling. also very important. hitler thought that d day was going to happen at calais. without him thinking that, we may not have hit the beach.

Not true, they did not use human wave assaults. They did do a lot of counter attacks that were wasteful. But prolly not the kind you are thinking of.

They used scorched earth against Napoleon and the Germans and AH in WWI as well.

it just seems like they got their asses kicked, but simply had so many people that they were able to recover and do some ass kicking. to me, that doesnt seem so impressive as it does lucky. they also would have lost had hitler not made some idiotic mistakes. he was too stubborn. i need to educate myself more on the eastern front though, for sure.
 
nothing wrong with considering hitler. even a broken watch is right twice a day. he was a mass murdering crazy evil bastard but he had his skills.

should we really be impressed with what he did in the german economy though? all he really did was tell the league of nations that he wasnt paying reparations anymore. put germans to work building a military. correct me if im wrong there. i could have done that, though.

early on in the war he was impressive. but he idolized napoleon, and then made the same damn mistake in russia that he had. major F up.

his four years plan was a geniuses to a large extent
Germany only Problem was US helping the UK at that time, without that they won the war
 
oh my god, does every world war 2 end in a soviet humping fest?
 
Looks like this thread is going as I suspected with a lot of posters, including the OP, citing Churchill.

Here's a more critical analysis.

[YT]4edDlIGAd2g[/YT]

BTW, the correct answer is General Georgy Zhukov.
 
Last edited:
Churchill gets my vote. He was an inspiring leader to his countryman even during dark times after the fall of France. Unlike Stalin and Hitler, he did not throw lives needlessly away.

Russians did not quit when Napoleon invaded and took Moscow. I'm not so sure that without Lend Lease they would have surrendered to Germany. They have historically shown a willingness to endure great hardships. And if Stalin had not purged so many of the Russian officer corp prior to the start of Barbarossa, I think the Red Army would have shown itself early on to be tough opposition, much closer to what they became mid to late war.
A documentary I watched around a year ago about the 1941 invasion also mentioned Stalin being in a deep depression for at least a week after Germany declared war, which also made things very hard for the army to react.
 
The MVP of WW2 was all the men who died for what they thought was the right thing to do
 
Actually the quality of the infantry decreased well into 1944, as they just siffered too many losses. While the artillery got better from 42.
While it's true that nfantry in the first years suffered to high a turnover for a marked improvement, it's also true that doctrinally and structurally, The Red Army had a marked increase in quality every year from 41 to 45. They had a rapidly improving officer corps (from a really, really shitty one), increased focus on independent agressive leadership, removal of the tier of political officers from the front, and the gradual adaptation of force concentration and encirclement-destruction doctrines.

It's also not open for debate that had America not been drawn into the war in late '42, the Red Army would not have lasted long enough for such a transformation to take place.
Would you mind presenting this argument in more detail? Because the most commonly claimed tipping point on the Eastern front is the encirclement-destruction of the Stalingrad pocket with the subsequent German rout to the Donets, with the Battle of Kursk demonstrating the changed balance.

By all means, a war isn't won until it's over, and less allied commitment would definitely have meant a much longer and bloody war on the eastern front, but Germany in early 43 had very much lost the initiative. At this point, Germany was very far from defeated, but they had demonstrably reached a point where they were trading causalties far too evenly with a numerically superior enemy with larger industrial capacity. The long-term odds were pretty grim for them at this point, and to say that these operations, which started slightly before the declaration of war on the US and ended just two months after, were greatly affected by the increased US involvement seems like a stretch. And to say it's not open for debate, is frankly puzzling.

it just seems like they got their asses kicked, but simply had so many people that they were able to recover and do some ass kicking. to me, that doesnt seem so impressive as it does lucky.
A better description would be that they got their asses kicked, but had so much people and vast areas that they were able to learn to kick ass themselves. The Red Army of 44 and 45 was a fearsome one.

It's more grit, heart and adaptability than luck.

they also would have lost had hitler not made some idiotic mistakes. he was too stubborn.
This is possible.

oh my god, does every world war 2 end in a soviet humping fest?
Probably because they did most of the groundwork.
 
Back
Top