Ww2 mvp

True, but the Soviets were going from basically the worst officer corps in 40, so it was easy to improve.
They did improve, and the Germans made a terrible mistake with Case Blue, as they went beyond their logistics, and made it pretty easy for an army to be destroyed.

The Soviets still made some serious mistakes in 43 ala Kharkov, and even at Kursk they took some massive losses for no good reason.

Afterwards, with their "Deep Penetration" doctrine and tons on artillery, they were able to take on the exhausted Germans pretty well. Thoush even then, they took absurd losses, while the Germans didn't in similar places. Look at Budapest, what a CF for the Soviets, it should have been much cleaner.
 
True, but the Soviets were going from basically the worst officer corps in 40, so it was easy to improve.
They did improve, and the Germans made a terrible mistake with Case Blue, as they went beyond their logistics, and made it pretty easy for an army to be destroyed.

The Soviets still made some serious mistakes in 43 ala Kharkov, and even at Kursk they took some massive losses for no good reason.

Afterwards, with their "Deep Penetration" doctrine and tons on artillery, they were able to take on the exhausted Germans pretty well. Thoush even then, they took absurd losses, while the Germans didn't in similar places. Look at Budapest, what a CF for the Soviets, it should have been much cleaner.
I more or less agree with everything here. It most certainly was a gradual improvement, and they had the worst starting point of any major power at the time. I think the main difference on our views is what we'd like to emphasize. I feel it's very undercommunicated that they actually fought way smarter at the end of the war than at the beginning, and that the root of that was pervasive and sweeping changes to the entire Red Army.

I'd argue that a lot of the unneccesary Soviet losses after the summer of 43 was more due to a strategic priority of grabbing land before the allied could do it, rather than reflective of the quality of his army. The american army took serious and unneccesary disporportionate casualties agaist Germany several times when advancement was prioritised over casualties as well. Hurtgen comes to mind.

I'm a huge Stalingrad-3rd Kharkov-Kursk nerd, but I'm not well read on Budapest. A two-line synopsis on the clusterfuck part? Or reading reccomendation?
 
oh my god, does every world war 2 end in a soviet humping fest?

Well in fairness, even if the Soviets had single-handedly won WWII, they would have been simply clearing up a mess they bore a lot of responsibility for creating. They enthusiastically helped Hitler invade Poland. If Hitler had not invaded Russia, Stalin would have been happy to carve up the rest of Europe with the Third Reich...until he thought it was time to betray his BFF and declare war on Germany. Hitler, in a sense, was just getting his retaliation in first.

Another reason Stalin cannot be considered the MVP: he was warned by Soviet Intelligence that German troop movements near the border indicated they were planning to invade, but he refused to believe them.

Both the UK and USA entered the War for essentially moral reasons. The Soviets entered the War on the side of the most evil regime in history, and only switched sides when it bit them in the ass.:rolleyes:
 
Well in fairness, even if the Soviets had single-handedly won WWII, they would have been simply clearing up a mess they bore a lot of responsibility for creating. They enthusiastically helped Hitler invade Poland. If Hitler had not invaded Russia, Stalin would have been happy to carve up the rest of Europe with the Third Reich...until he thought it was time to betray his BFF and declare war on Germany. Hitler, in a sense, was just getting his retaliation in first.

Another reason Stalin cannot be considered the MVP: he was warned by Soviet Intelligence that German troop movements near the border indicated they were planning to invade, but he refused to believe them.

Both the UK and USA entered the War for essentially moral reasons. The Soviets entered the War on the side of the most evil regime in history, and only switched sides when it bit them in the ass.:rolleyes:

And they were looking at it as a land grab to extend the soviet red carpet over Europe
 
Well in fairness, even if the Soviets had single-handedly won WWII, they would have been simply clearing up a mess they bore a lot of responsibility for creating. They enthusiastically helped Hitler invade Poland. If Hitler had not invaded Russia, Stalin would have been happy to carve up the rest of Europe with the Third Reich...until he thought it was time to betray his BFF and declare war on Germany. Hitler, in a sense, was just getting his retaliation in first.

Another reason Stalin cannot be considered the MVP: he was warned by Soviet Intelligence that German troop movements near the border indicated they were planning to invade, but he refused to believe them.

Both the UK and USA entered the War for essentially moral reasons. The Soviets entered the War on the side of the most evil regime in history, and only switched sides when it bit them in the ass.:rolleyes:

Well said, good post mate.
 
Well in fairness, even if the Soviets had single-handedly won WWII, they would have been simply clearing up a mess they bore a lot of responsibility for creating. They enthusiastically helped Hitler invade Poland. If Hitler had not invaded Russia, Stalin would have been happy to carve up the rest of Europe with the Third Reich...until he thought it was time to betray his BFF and declare war on Germany. Hitler, in a sense, was just getting his retaliation in first.

Another reason Stalin cannot be considered the MVP: he was warned by Soviet Intelligence that German troop movements near the border indicated they were planning to invade, but he refused to believe them.

Both the UK and USA entered the War for essentially moral reasons. The Soviets entered the War on the side of the most evil regime in history, and only switched sides when it bit them in the ass.:rolleyes:

Yeah, generally when I think "MVP" I think "somebody I'd want leading my team."

With that test, it's hard to think of somebody who failed worse than Stalin. Allies with the Nazis, basically gets them started in their "War on the East," disastrously misapprehends the situation, gets well over 25% of the Soviet Union slaughtered, and in general fucks up horrendously in almost every way he could. The only decision I give him props for is moving heavy industry to protected locations early on. Other than that, it was basically a series of fuck ups mitigated by American economic warfare against the Nazis.

The great virtue of Stalin and the Soviet soldier is that there was a near infinite number of them to be sent charging to their deaths. But that's hardly MVP material in your leader.

Much as I hate to give FDR any cred, the reality is the US took barely any casualties (in comparison) and ended the war in an absurdly powerful situation. In every way the US fought that war right compared to the other players.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, generally when I think "MVP" I think "somebody I'd want leading my team."

With that test, it's hard to think of somebody who failed worse than Stalin. Allies with the Nazis, basically gets them started in their "War on the East," disastrously misapprehends the situation, gets well over 25% of the Soviet Union slaughtered, and in general fucks up horrendously in almost every way he could. The only decision I give him props for is moving heavy industry to protected locations early on. Other than that, it was basically a series of fuck ups mitigated by American economic warfare against the Nazis.

The great virtue of Stalin and the Soviet soldier is that there was a near infinite number of them to be sent charging to their deaths. But that's hardly MVP material in your leader.

Much as I hate to give FDR any cred, the reality is the US took barely any casualties (in comparison) and ended the war in an absurdly powerful situation. In every way the US fought that war right compared to the other players.

That's actually a good point. Within a few years we went from not wanting any part of the war to creating the most powerful weapon the world has ever seen. pretty badass.
 
Yeah, generally when I think "MVP" I think "somebody I'd want leading my team."

With that test, it's hard to think of somebody who failed worse than Stalin. Allies with the Nazis, basically gets them started in their "War on the East," disastrously misapprehends the situation, gets well over 25% of the Soviet Union slaughtered, and in general fucks up horrendously in almost every way he could. The only decision I give him props for is moving heavy industry to protected locations early on. Other than that, it was basically a series of fuck ups mitigated by American economic warfare against the Nazis.

The great virtue of Stalin and the Soviet soldier is that there was a near infinite number of them to be sent charging to their deaths. But that's hardly MVP material in your leader.

Much as I hate to give FDR any cred, the reality is the US took barely any casualties (in comparison) and ended the war in an absurdly powerful situation. In every way the US fought that war right compared to the other players.

Agreed. Of the three major allies, America came out on top. Britain was absolutely wrecked; the War cost us what was left of the Empire. The Soviets lost more people than any other nation, and much of the blame for that lies with Stalin's purges, which effectively gutted the Red Army of much of it's best officers. This combined with his willful ignorance regarding Hitler's plans to invade allowed the Nazis a head start they very nearly converted into outright victory. Had it not been for a combination of mistakes, including underestimating the severity of the Russian winter and Hitler's ridiculous interference in tactical decisions, the Nazis might well have smashed the Red Army beyond repair.

America ended the War, for a short time at least, as the undisputed Superpower. With a powerful economy, a huge military and Nuclear Weapons.
 
Last edited:
One of Stalin's stronger sides in the war was a decreasing tendency to micro-manage the STAVKA and his generals, and as well as a general trend of removing political control in the fighting units.

If "getting out of the way" is one of your stronger sides, you might not be the best guy on the team.

I'm not sure about FDR, as it's always difficult to rate people who succeeds from a strong starting position. The US was definitely the war's great winner, but they really should be in most of the likely scenarioes of the war, and they had very little incentive to be more reckless than they were. FDR did good, definitely. But best? I dunno. Maybe that's as good as it gets in a complete disaster such as that. I struggle with other good candidates if this is about heads of state.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I think that's part of the problem with Churchill too ... it's comparatively easy to be a great war leader when you are on an island and have the Soviets and the US fighting so much of the war for you. Really none of the main leaders strike me as particularly brilliant in how they approached the war. On the Allied side it was largely a foregone application of much greater money and greater manpower. The Germans were the only ones really outperforming, but they failed and ended in ruin.

Still I think the US did well in timing its entry at just the right moment to gain most of the power advantage while minimizing its cost, all while fighting a truly nasty war in the Pacific. Although even there, we let the Soviets get more of a lead than perhaps was wise in hindsight.
 
Yeah I think that's part of the problem with Churchill too ... it's comparatively easy to be a great war leader when you are on an island and have the Soviets and the US fighting so much of the war for you. Really none of the main leaders strike me as particularly brilliant in how they approached the war. On the Allied side it was largely a foregone application of much greater money and greater manpower. The Germans were the only ones really outperforming, but they failed and ended in ruin.
Agreed on all points. It's even more difficult considering it's a fairly long period of extreme stress that we're trying to evaluate, and not just a year or a single episode. As I said, FDR might be it.

From a strict power-play perspective Mao might be a good canditate, considering he started from no position of power what so ever, fought a much longer conflict than the other leaders of state, and ended up establishing a coming major power. That's doing quite a lot with a little. I know too little of the war in China to more than wonder vaguely about that, however.

Depending on the criteria, Hitler might be the offensive MVP. From 38-41 took a nation to far greater acts of agression than their general stab had dreamed of, motivated the populace into great support for this, conquered large parts of Europe, and gave the Soviet Union a good (if by far insufficient) trashing. Now most of the execution of this is not on him, but these are also the years in which he started to insert himself directly into operational decisions, and he did it quite successfully, which motivated him to escalate his meddling with later disastrous consequences. He personally chose the von Manstein plan for the invasion of France over the plan perferred by his staff, his no-retreat order on the Eastern Front in the winter of 41 turned out to be a good one (as opposed to all of his later ones).

His numerous fuck-ups and his increasing powers of self-delusion as the war goes on are of course well documented, but his wild gambling payed off time and time again in the first years, and he wildly outplayed the Allies diplomatically several times in his land grabs during the years before the war.

Overall, he goes down as a bad wartime leader, and one of the most infamous examples of inhuman behavior of all time, both against his enemies, and eventually towards his own nation. But he seems to be one of the truly exceptional leaders of the war, both in a good and a bad way.

Mannerheim, perhaps? Both field general and president, overperforming greatly in the face of a much larger opponent in both roles, and managed to maintain Finland's independence even with the Soviet Union as it's belligerent neighbour, and after having fought for the losing side.

Still I think the US did well in timing its entry at just the right moment to gain most of the power advantage while minimizing its cost, all while fighting a truly nasty war in the Pacific. Although even there, we let the Soviets get more of a lead than perhaps was wise in hindsight.
Agreed on all accounts.
 
Agreed on all points. It's even more difficult considering it's a fairly long period of extreme stress that we're trying to evaluate, and not just a year or a single episode. As I said, FDR might be it.

From a strict power-play perspective Mao might be a good canditate, considering he started from no position of power what so ever, fought a much longer conflict than the other leaders of state, and ended up establishing a coming major power. That's doing quite a lot with a little. I know too little of the war in China to more than wonder vaguely about that, however.

Depending on the criteria, Hitler might be the offensive MVP. From 38-41 took a nation to far greater acts of agression than their general stab had dreamed of, motivated the populace into great support for this, conquered large parts of Europe, and gave the Soviet Union a good (if by far insufficient) trashing. Now most of the execution of this is not on him, but these are also the years in which he started to insert himself directly into operational decisions, and he did it quite successfully, which motivated him to escalate his meddling with later disastrous consequences. He personally chose the von Manstein plan for the invasion of France over the plan perferred by his staff, his no-retreat order on the Eastern Front in the winter of 41 turned out to be a good one (as opposed to all of his later ones).

His numerous fuck-ups and his increasing powers of self-delusion as the war goes on are of course well documented, but his wild gambling payed off time and time again in the first years, and he wildly outplayed the Allies diplomatically several times in his land grabs during the years before the war.

Overall, he goes down as a bad wartime leader, and one of the most infamous examples of inhuman behavior of all time, both against his enemies, and eventually towards his own nation. But he seems to be one of the truly exceptional leaders of the war, both in a good and a bad way.


Mannerheim, perhaps? Both field general and president, overperforming greatly in the face of a much larger opponent in both roles, and managed to maintain Finland's independence even with the Soviet Union as it's belligerent neighbour, and after having fought for the losing side.

Agreed on all accounts.

Excellent points, well made. Also, I'm surprised no one's mentioned(unless I missed it)Eisenhower yet.
 
Really none of the main leaders strike me as particularly brilliant in how they approached the war. On the Allied side it was largely a foregone application of much greater money and greater manpower. The Germans were the only ones really outperforming, but they failed and ended in ruin.

I don't think there was an opportunity to be brilliant vs Germany or Japan. Both countries were too powerful to lose by any means other than to be ground down (except of course with dropping a-bombs). Even with brilliant victories like Battle of Britain, Midway, and Stalingrad it still took years to bring about the end.

As much as the Soviets are maligned in the early war don't forget they beat the crap outta the Japanese in an undeclared war in '39 on the Manchurian/Mongolian border.
And I know everyone is going to say of course its the Italian's but the Brits thoroughly kicked ass in North Africa before the Afrika Korps got there. Still they did everything right. So both did have moments of brilliance.
 
Excellent points, well made. Also, I'm surprised no one's mentioned(unless I missed it)Eisenhower yet.
Thanks! I think Eisenhower hasn't been mentioned largely because most of the thread has been about heads of state. Eisenhower might qualify even so, though. As the Supreme Commander of the Joint Allied Forces in Europe he was in such a hugely strategic position that it makes a lot of sense for him to compare him to heads of state.
 
I don't think there was an opportunity to be brilliant vs Germany or Japan. Both countries were too powerful to lose by any means other than to be ground down (except of course with dropping a-bombs). Even with brilliant victories like Battle of Britain, Midway, and Stalingrad it still took years to bring about the end.

As much as the Soviets are maligned in the early war don't forget they beat the crap outta the Japanese in an undeclared war in '39 on the Manchurian/Mongolian border.
And I know everyone is going to say of course its the Italian's but the Brits thoroughly kicked ass in North Africa before the Afrika Korps got there. Still they did everything right. So both did have moments of brilliance.

The Soviets had a colossal advantage in tanks and planes versus the Japanese in the 39 conflict, so it wasn't overly impressive in that respect. It would have been pretty stunning if they had lost given their gigantic advantage in equipment and the fact that Zhukov was in charge of them.

The US played a sensible strategy given an overwhelming advantage in industrial power, money, capital, and allies -- just slowly bleed the Axis to death in advantageous battles. It was Germany and Japan that were desperately forced to attack in order to keep their economy functioning.

The biggest part of the war that the Americans excelled at was the industrial, economic, and logistical side. We absolutely pulverized everybody in that arena, and not only did it make winning the war almost inevitable, it put us in an awesome position after the war ended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany_(1939–45)
 
Agreed. Of the three major allies, America came out on top. Britain was absolutely wrecked; the War cost us what was left of the Empire. The Soviets lost more people than any other nation

Pretty easy to escape unscathed when your country is 2000+ miles away.
& Britain was far from being 'wrecked' compared to the rest of Europe, anyway.
Maybe better to wonder how despite the casualties and carnage, the USSR became a superpower anyway, put the first satellite out a decade later, the first man in space 15 yrs later...

a different question: LVP? would have to be Mussolini IMO...
 
Not anti-Russian but not a Stalin nut-hugger either. Stalin's purges almost destroyed the Red Army, which is one of the reasons they got prison raped by the Finns during the Winter War(the other reason being the Finns are arguably the best cold weather soldiers in the world).

Stalin went on to kill more Russians than Hitler managed to. Russian soldiers were incredibly tough but poorly trained and often poorly commanded as well. If the UK had surrendered and America had not been drawn into the War, the only language we'd hear in Russia today would be German. Because Hitler's plans for the Russian's were exactly the same as those for the Jews, Poles, Gypsies etc.
The Fins were nasty during the Winter war and they had Simo H
 
Back
Top