Talk:Georgy Zhukov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Biography / Military (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group.
WikiProject Russia / History / Military (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


In your introduction it says that Zhukov "led the Red Army to liberate the Soviet Union from the Nazi occupation, " I think this descriprion is inaccurate as the Soviet Territory was not liberated it simply changed hands from Hitler's regime to Stalin's.

By the same token, Western Allies didn't "liberate" countries either, but simply exchanged Nazi regimes with others more open to the West. Sometimes, they changed little more than the figureheads. It's pointless to discuss this -- when an army recovers ground lost to an invading army, it's called "liberation", regardless of your own political beliefs. (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

- Yeah-yeah... Read what it says "liberated from Nazi occupation". As far as I know, Stalin, while perhaps not being the kindest person in the world, was not a Nazi, therefore I don't understand what you're complaining about. And where did you read that there was Hitler's regime in USSR? This book I gotta see. March 02 2007

- The intro says that he liberated Berlin, this is not the case as the last time I looked Berlin wasn't in the USSR, and didn't need liberating from the Germans. Maybe the use of the word captured would be more accurate. Particularly as this 'liberated' city encountered, at the hands of, according to the sentence, its 'liberators,' rape, looting and devastation on a massive scale.

But the Germans did need liberating from the Nazis, something they apparently were rather inept at doing themselves. (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

old talk[edit]

Hello. Do you have an interest or comment on the Georgi Zhukov article? - Texture 18:32, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Before assuming command of the defence of Moscow in late 1941, Zhukov organised the defence of Leningrad, stopping the German advance in the southern outskirts of the city. Maybe you want to insert a more elaborate reference to that?

Oh and by the way, Russia adopted the Zhukov Order and the Zhukov Medal in 1995, commemorating his 100th birthday.

--Kolt 12:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Zhukov didn't subdue 'a peasant revolt" but the Tambov rebellion:

Russian topography and administration[edit]


there was no Ugodski-Zavod raion in tsarist era, I was wrong, sorry. The tsarist-era raion was of larger scale than later soviet-era raion. - therefore is right: "born in ...Maloyaroslavets raion".

Does anyone know when the place (PGT) UGODSKI ZAVOD was renamed "ZHUKOVO" in Georgi K. Zhukov's honor ?

Thanks, WernerE (germanwiki), 25.2.05


How does it happen that Battle of Kursk is not linked, nor the city even mentioned? Robert Service (NPR interview 2005 May) attributes his role at Kursk as the biggest reason for his veneration to this day in Russia, unless i got confused.
--Jerzy (t) 05:49, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Zhukov was representative of Stavka (actually, Stalin's deputy), to coordinate the Fronts during the battle. The immediate major commanders are listed at the Battle of Kursk article. If one wants to attribute this piece of glory to Zhukov, he must not forget that all Soviet battles have been won by the Greatest Military Genius of All Times Generalissimo Stalin. Mikkalai 00:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
No. Where does it say that? _Battles_ are won by military commanders. Maybe the overall war is won by political leaders. (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in the article[edit]

The painting of Marshal Zhukov is tagged as "propaganda poster" In fact, this is a painting by the artist Konstantin Vassiliev (Константин Васильев), 1942 - 1976. You can see some of his paintings at

I doubt that the horse in the victory parade picture is an Akhal-Teke. First, the colour was extremely rare in that breed (if there were any grays at all), second, that horse hasn't got the "greyhound" exterior so typical for an Akhal-Teke. To me it looks like a horse with a lot of Arabian blood. For a pure-bred Arab it's too tall. (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Stalin submit to criticism?[edit]

Stalin's willingness to submit to criticism and listen to his generals eventually contributed to his success as a commander - whereas Hitler sacked any general who disagreed with him.

From what I remember of history class (which isn't much) Stalin executed most of his military commanders before the war, for some reason Zhukov survived Stalin's extermination. This meant Russia had precious few capable generals at the beginning of WWII, leading to massive Soviet losses.

But basically, did Stalin really take criticism at all from anyone? He executed more Russians than died in WWII! Perhaps someone who knows more about history than me could clear that up! --Fxer 01:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Stalin's willingness to submit to criticism and listen to his generals eventually contributed to his success as a commander - whereas Hitler sacked any general who disagreed with him.
Tell that to Zhukov. Though he ended the war on a high note, he was in fact demoted twice, and threatened with arrest once, the first time for disagreeing with Stalin about evaculating Kiev, the second time he was demoted and threatened with arrest for disagreeing with Stalin about evacuating Vyaz'ma. Stalin was almost as capricious with those who disagreed with him as Hitler. Furtermore, Hitler did NOT sack any general who disagreed with him. Model disagreed with him quite often (and only was sacked for it once) as did many other German generals.
This quote is quite simply wrong: both leaders were capricious and demoted, sacked and on rare occasions even killed those who actively disagreed with their decisions. Nordenfeldt (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  • That's actually true. After the major failures of 1941 Stalin became quite receptive to the suggestions of his commanders. Unlike Hitler he did listen to their advice, allowed them to ovverrule him on occasions, and let them act independently. Instead of being judged on their opinions before the battle they were judged by the outcome. Of course the pressure to succeed was enormous, and the punishment for failure severe; however Stalin was at least smart enough not to think himself a military genius. He'd take the credit for the successes later anyway.
Thats actually a good point...beleive it or not, the Soviet high command (STAVKA) acted as more of a team than the German OKW after Stalingrad. Stalin was indeed smart to give his senior commanders their latitude in developing the counter offensives. This may have a lot to do with whether a country is on the offensive or defensive, as it were. Engr105th 06:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

After the Nazis almost took Moscow and won WWII Stalin had no other option but to listen to his generals. Hitler on the other hand had taken France within a month, and held most of Europe by 1941. To him the Russian Victory at Battle of Moscow was simply luck and general winter. The battles of Stalingrad and Kursk would prove him dead wrong. But Stalin had no successes as a commander. His 'success' was realizing that others who grew up with the army and fought in actual battles should command instead of him. His contribution to victory was beating the Nazis at the 'propaganda war'.

Actually, by what you're saying, Stalin's major contribution was listening to his generals. This is a major skill any commander should have. In this respect, he was way better than Hitler! (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


The following piece of text

for example at the Battle of Moscow in the winter of 1941 Zhukov lost 139,586 men, or 13.6% of his total strength - while a comparable operation under General Kozlov lost 39.4% of his men near Kerch. As the war went on, Zhukov's casualties were becoming even lower; while often incredibly high by any other country's standards, for the Soviet Union they were below average. At the Battle of Berlin Zhukov lost only 4.1% of his men, while Konev's forces, that faced weaker German opposition, lost 5%, and at the same time Rodion Malinovsky lost almost 8% at the Battle of Budapest

does not credit a source. I have never come across such numbers and they seem very suspicious to me. could the author of these staements provide her/his sources?--Compay 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe they are coming from the book "Russia and USSR in the Wars of XXth Century. Military Losses. Statistical Research" by candidate of sciences (military) full general G. F. Krivosheev. It was published in Russia in 2001 and so far remains the most thorough and reliable source for information on Soviet losses in WWII. It is available online in Russian here:
The numbers are based on loss reports, which in the Red Army were submitted bi-weekly IIRC. Note that the balance method of losses estimation gives a total number of military losses that is approximately 16% higher than Krivosheev's data (10,107,500 total losses during WWII as opposed to 8,668,400 as calculated by Krivosheev). These two numbers are the "safe" lower and upper limits for Soviet military losses during WWII. The actual number of losses is somewhere between these two figures, but it's hard to tell where exactly.
As for operational losses, only Krivosheev's numbers are available. Purely theoretically, I would expect them to be more accurate towards the end of the war. Thus, the numbers of losses in Berlin operation are probably quite close to reality, while the losses for operations of 1941 are probably underreported. But this is just speculation, of course. Eleyvie 09:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory Text[edit]

According to the text on this page, Lavrentiy Beria is "one of the main organizers of Stalin's purges". This information directly contradicts the data on Lavrentiy Beria's page and does not relate to this article anyway. This statement should probably be removed I reckon?

P.S. Sorry, forgot to sign: it's me. :-) Eleyvie 09:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Grand Cross of the Bath[edit]

This article begins with the words "Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov, GCB", with the acronym GCB linking to the "Grand Cross of the Bath" page. As Zhukov was Russian, not British, and as he held many other honours in addition to this, I don't really think that it is appropriate to single out the fact that he had had this British honour conferred upon him. Comments? --The Thieving Gypsy 14:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Leningrad 1941[edit]

Article says: "Zhukov stopped the German advance in Leningrad's southern outskirts in the autumn of 1941."

This is not true as Zhukov arrived to Leningrad only on 13 September, 1941 and Germans did not have any plans to attack Leningrad. Already 5 september Hitler announced that objective at Leningrad was achieved and 6th September signed directive No. 35, ordering blockade of Leningrad (not a sturm!) to release airforce and mobile units for central direction.

Hitlers directive no.35 says: "On the Northeastern front, in conjunction with the Finnish Corps attacking on the Karelian peninsula, we must (after the capture of Schlusselburg) so surround the enemy forces fighting in the Leningrad area that by September 15th at the latest substantial units of the motorized forces and of 1st Air Fleet, especially VIII Air Corps. will be available for service on the Central front. Before this, efforts will be made to encircle Leningrad more closely, in particular in the east, and, should weather permit, a large-scale air attack on Leningrad will be carried out. It is particularly important in this connection to destroy the water supply." Zuchov in his memuars attributes his win against the German military on his strickt following of the teachings from Vladimir Triandafillov the military theorist the creator of the "deep operations" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion: Zhukov did not stop advance in Leningrad outskirts as Germans did not even plan to take Leningrad in Autumn 1941. Article is full of similar errors and needs serious cleanup.Sigitas 17:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your conclusions are wrong, the germans wanted to capture leningrad but were unable to make progress because of the resistance zhukov and others put into place so hitler decided to starve out the city (Deng 19:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC))
Content of articles must be verifiable! Don't invent facts. When Zhukov arrived to Leningrad German had no plans / made no attempts to take the city. Zhukov did not stop advance of Germans at Leningrad because Germans stopped before arrival of Zhukov. Decision to blockade city was made before arrival of Zhukov. Check the dates: 7th September Hitler orders to encircle Leningrad and release units to other directions, 13th September Zhukov arrives to leningrad and assumes command. Sigitas 01:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what happens when you only read limited information, you must read more it is the only way that you will learn here are 4 books and you should atleast read one of them if you want to know something.
  1. The Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1944: 900 Days of Terror (2001) ISBN 0760309418 by David Glantz
  2. Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War (1998) ISBN 0700608796 by David glantz
  3. Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort: 1941-1945 ISBN 0140271694 by Richard Overy
  4. The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore
Without getting a bigger picture and with only scraps of information from the internet you can never understand the whole big picture and if you wish to know more then the only way to do so is to study more.
Give facts. Sigitas 09:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Still did not found any plans of advance or attempts of advance on Leningrad which Zhukov supposedly stopped? Sigitas 07:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And you never will untill you start reading books written on the matter at hand(Deng 11:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
Could you please quote what Overy and Montefiore say what German advance of at leningrad and how Zhukov stopped? Give page number if possible please. Listing books is not good enough. Sigitas 11:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Page 99 in russia's war and you will see him calling him a genius as well and you will find out that he was sent to leningrad twice (Deng 14:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
sent twice to leningrad in 1941? You know well that there was no advance of germans at Leningrad during Zhukov's stay in Leningrad, otherwise you would quote info on this German exercise. Documents provided by me show that Germans planned to encircle city and move part of units to other directions and Zhukov failed to disrupt these German plans. Zhukov did not prevent Germans building fortified encirclement structures. If Zhukov believed that he must prepare for Germam sturm, he failed to understand German plans. Sigitas 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What documents? Yes he was sent twice. The german plan was to destroy the red army, capture the whole european part and inslave the whole population. (Deng 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
No, Germans did not have such plan for september 13 - october 6, 1941, when Zhukov was in Leningrad. In september 1941 German plan was too keep Leningrad encircled as Hitler's directive No. 35 clearly says. Even zhukov in its memoirs (Воспоминания и размышления. М., 1969. С. 300) says that he reported to Stalin on 29 July 1941 that "Germans will not have strength to sturm Leningrad without additional forces". Additional forces never arrived. Sigitas 19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Zhukov did not arrive to Leningrad yet when 4th Tank Group moved from Leningrad to Moscow. Zhukov was stopping advance of ZERO german tanks at Leningrad. Is it really worth mentioning? Sigitas 19:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
real danger of losing Leningrad was from July to 6th September. During this period in Leningrad were Molotov, Malenkov, Voroshilov, Zhdanov, Voznesenkiy, Kosygin, Rodionov, Shtykov, Popkov, Kuzntesov, Zhigarev, Voronin. These guys prepared Leningrad for defence, not Zhukov. Sigitas 19:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
“Жуков вылетел в Ленинград 9 сентября (в мемуарах он ошибочно указал 10-е число). На следующий день он вступил в командование войсками Ленинградского фронта, а Ворошилов, оставшись главкомом Северо-Западного направления, 11 сентября отбыл в Москву. В этот день последовал формальный приказ о назначении Жукова. Никто не знал тогда: ни Ворошилов, ни Жуков, ни Сталин, что еще 6 сентября Гитлер отдал директиву № 35, объявляющую Ленинград «второстепенным театром военных действий». Командующий группой армий «Север» фельдмаршал риттер Вильгельм фон Лееб должен был ограничиться блокадой города и не позднее 15 сентября передать группе армий «Центр» обе танковые группы и значительную часть авиации для предстоящего генерального наступления на Москву. Штурм Ленинграда потребовал бы больших жертв и значительного времени, которого у Гитлера в преддверии зимы уже не было. Он решил постараться захватить главную стратегическую цель — Москву, рассчитывая овладеть Ленинградом позднее, когда его защитники будут истощены блокадой. Правда, 12 сентября фюрер издал новую директиву, в развитие предыдущей, где указывалось, что «авиационные и танковые силы не должны перебрасываться до установления полной блокады. Поэтому определенная директивой № 35 дата переброски может быть отложена на несколько дней». Фактически переброска была отодвинута лишь до 17 сентября. Ранее этого срока все равно не было возможности начать переброску на московское направление соединений группы «Центр», задействованных на Украине. Ленинградскому фронту оставалось продержаться всего несколько дней, после чего натиск неприятеля, захватившего пригороды северной столицы, неизбежно должен был ослабеть.

Жуков, повторяю, не мог знать об этих директивах Гитлера и полагал, что главной целью группы армий «Север» по-прежнему остается захват города. Он сосредоточил основные силы для отражения немецкого наступления в районе Пулковских высот. 17 сентября, в день, когда немцы вывели из сражения за Ленинград основные силы 3-й и 4-й танковых групп и 8-й авиационный корпус, появился грозный жуковский приказ: «Военный [268] Совет Ленинградского фронта приказывает объявить всему командному, политическому и рядовому составу, обороняющему указанный рубеж, что за оставление без письменного приказа военного совета фронта и армии указанного рубежа все командиры, политработники и бойцы подлежат немедленному расстрелу». По свидетельству маршала А.Е. Голованова, Жуков сам проводил в жизнь этот приказ — заставлял пулеметчиков стрелять по отходящим батальонам. Лееб продолжал наступление на ближних подступах к Ленинграду теперь уже только с целью отвлечь побольше сил Ленинградского фронта с любаньского направления, где им навстречу с целью прорыва блокады наступала 54-я армия маршала Кулика. Жуков же полагал, что враг все еще стремится овладеть городом, и концентрировал основные силы на обороне ближних подступов, а не на прорыве. Даже когда после 16 сентября под Ленинградом перестали действовать танковые соединения и резко упала активность люфтваффе, Георгий Константинович продолжал контратаковать в районе Пулково, а не у Невской Дубровки, навстречу 54-й армии. “ Sokolov “Unknown Zhukov” In short: according to the Hitler’s directive No. 35, already 17th September Germans moved most of their 3rd and 4th groups and 8th aviation corps. Few days ago von Leeb organized skirmishes in the border of the city only to distract forces of Leningrad Front from direction where Kulik’s 54th army came to break the blockade. Zhukov was fooled by Leeb and indeed concentrated counterattacks in wrong area, different from attacking 54th army. There was no real attempt to take city, Zhukov was fooled by von Leeb. Sigitas 20:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Term "neo-Stalinists"[edit]

This term is misapplied here when we talk about events of 1957. People who took power in 1957 - Nikita Khrushchev, Georgy Zhukov and Ivan Serov- were no lesser stalinists and they all were ruthless executors of Stalin's will each responsible for countless deaths of Stalin regime. Let's simply call oponents of Zhukov "opposition" or "Anti-Party Group" as they traditionally are called. Sigitas 17:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Party group" certainly seems to be the most common term in use. DMorpheus 15:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a "brilliant strategist"[edit]

Article says: "Zhukov was certainly a brilliant strategist".

Zhukov wasn't brilliant strategist. Catastrophe of Red Army in 1941 (when Zhukov was chief of the Red Army General Staff) is one of the most spectacular defeats in history. 34.000 tanks destroyed or captured, over 6000 aicraft destroyed, and +- 2 million casualties (killed, wounded and captured). These were the losses in 1941 of the Soviet Army. Let's remove this incorrect sentense. Sigitas 17:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

34,000 tanks destroyed? In 1941 alone?? Are you sure thats correct? And did the Soviets even have 6,000 aircraft in that year? Engr105th 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You asume that everything that went wrong in 1941 is his fault? You totally ignore that the doctrine and traning of the red army was obsolete in 1941. And in 1941 most of the soliders didnt have any small arms or ammunition. You ignore so much and blame everything on Zhukov. And then you ignore the rest of the war, it ended in 1945. Most historians say that he was brilliant. For example David Glantz, John Erickson and Richard Overy all say the same thing. They are all military historians and they know what they are talking about. Read the books they have written and you will find out for your self (Deng 10:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC))
"In 1941 most of the soliders didnt have any small arms or ammunition"? Prove it. And if it was the case why chief of the Red Army General Staff Zhukov did not supply them with ammo? Why chief of the Red Army General Staff did not train his army properly? It is strange position to attribute victories to Zhukov, but defeats to someone else. Yes, war did not end in 1941, just like Zhukov's defeats did not end in 1941. Did you hear about Rzhev meatgrinder? Opinion of few historians doesn't make him more brilliant. I don't mind formulation "David Glantz, John Erickson and Richard Overy consider Zhukov brilliant strategist despite many strategical setbacks experienced of Red Army under his command." Sigitas 12:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure Glantz would make an overall assessment of "brilliant", but since I have most of his books I will check. He is, after all, mostly responsible for uncovering Operation Mars (Rzhev) in the west. Frankly Zhukov's record is uneven, like many Generals. The article should reflect that.
Glantz's Stumbling Colossus demonstrates that the Red Army's readiness in June 1941 was appalling. It's not true that "most of the soldiers didn't have any small arms or ammunition" but it is correct that many units lacked any provision for resupply of even basic loads, and had a very low level of maintenance and training. The spring 1941 set of new recruits had just been taken into their units and had very little training by June.
The Red Army didn't have 34,000 tanks to lose in 1941. Their doctrine ("Deep Battle") was quite advanced, but thier training and readiness were horrible, so they couldn't execute it.
Finally it might be useful to take Rokossovski's views into consideration. He served both above Zhukov and under his command over the years. DMorpheus 14:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my numbers were incorrect. According to the official data from the General staff of Russian Federation loses during 5 first months of war were: 4,000,000 POVs, 20 500 tanks, 17 900 military planes, 20 000 guns and 85% of military factories. We cannot call this tactical setback. We cannot call chief of the Red Army General Staff of annihilated army "brilliant strategist". What Zhukov did to avoid this catastrophe? Sigitas 16:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Legionas|Sigitas I think your problem is that you lack alot of information. First why the red army lost so much early in the war wasent Zhukov fault but Stalins. Basically everywhere you want to put Zhukov put Stalin and you will have a correct version. Stalin was the one who didnt supply the troops, stalin was the one that demanded counter attacks everywhere. And Zhukov could only work and use his brilliance to a certain levle because Stalin demanded to much and understod to little. And it is not the oppionon of Some historians but almost ALL historians. If you want to find out more then read more or study history at an university. And Rokossovski's could have an axe to grind with Zhukov, just as DMorpheus has an axe to grind with me. (Deng 15:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC))
As SuperDeng is in minority this time and he did not provide quotes of his favorite hiostorians saying that Zhukov was "brilliant startegist", I'm removing this sentence. As no one protests I also make two more corrections, see posts on this page above on Leningrad and "stalinists". Sigitas 17:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
You are blameing the wrong person. Zhukov didnt give the orders Stalin did. Zhukov could only advice Stalin. During the early part of the war Stalin wouldnt listen to anyone and EVERYONE was afraid of Stalin. It was Stalin who refused to believe that the germans would attack and also gave orders which forbade people from strikeing back when the germns launched their invasion. Stalin gave all the orders during the first part of the war and everyone had to follow them. Zhukov was the only one brave enough to argue with Stalin and tell him how wrong he was. In Russia's War by Richard Overy you can see that Zhukov was the only one who argued with Stalin the rest of the Stavka were just quiet. You must understand that Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with an iron hand and he was the undisputed ruler, his words were the law. And the majority of the faliures that befell the red army early in the war was almost completly Stalins fault. Stalin would demand counter attacks everywhere, no matter if the troops had ammo, weapons or any form of equipment. Only when Stalin stoped giving his idiotic orders and released his grip on the military was the red army able to fight an equall battle. Everything you believe is Zhukovs fault is in fact Stalins fault becuase he was the one that gave all the idotic orders during the first part of the war. He was the one who pushed the troops into battle without equipment. Stalin is to blame not Zhukov. The fact that Stalin would listen to Zhukov and did not kill him for argueing with him shows without a shadow of a doubt that Zhukov was brilliant. Because if even Stalin can understand that someone is smart then he must really be smart. And when Zhukov was allowed to give his orders and fight without any interferance from Stalin there you can see victory. But when Stalin interfered there you can see defeat. (Deng 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC))
You wrote: Stalin gave all the orders during the first part of the war and everyone had to follow them. If this is true then on what basis can you rate Zhukov as "brilliant"? The guy giving the orders gets the credit and the blame. For example, you credit Zhukov's three-week command of the Leningrad sector with saving the city. But according to you Stalin was giving all the orders, so isn't it Stalin who saved Leningrad? Zhukov's role is meaningless if Stalin was giving all the orders....he might as well have been a clerk. How is it "brilliant" to follow the orders of an untrained dictator? You can't have it both ways - either Zhukov and other generals had some autonomy and could command (at least within their sphere of authority) or it was Stalin giving all the orders. You also wrote "....when Zhukov was allowed to give his orders and fight without any interferance from Stalin there you can see victory. But when Stalin interfered there you can see defeat." That is a very convenient, but false formulation.
The truth is rather obvious: commanders of the Red Army indeed had *some* autonomy and the better ones were able to achieve successes, often in spite of Stalin. The worst ones failed whether Stalin was breathing down their necks or not. People like Kulik, Voroshilov, etc. didn't need Stalin to help them fail.
You also wrote "The fact that Stalin would listen to Zhukov and did not kill him for argueing with him shows without a shadow of a doubt that Zhukov was brilliant." This is laughable. A more likely explanation is that Stalin needed Zhukov, and both men knew it. There were plenty of brilliant people who did not survive an argument with Stalin, so "not being killed" by Stalin is hardly evidence of brilliance. Trotsky was an intellectual giant compared with either of them, and it cost him his life.
Anyway, all of these 'brilliant' statements are mere POV or original research until a historian is quoted giving this assessment. Sigitas was right; until there is a reputable historian providing the assessment, it is original research and does not belong here.
Regarding Rokossovski, of course he may have had an axe to grind. So does everyone else. The point is to understand who has what axe and how it affects their writing. Zhukov's memoirs were published in the Krushchev era, when Stalin's role in WW2 was being minimized. Of course they will say that Zhukov stood up to Stalin. If he had written that in 1947 he would have never been published. DMorpheus 18:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

An historian has been quoted Richard Overy In Russia's War
Yes the generals had some command within their sphere of authority but that dosent matter when the man in charge gives idiotic orders and impossible tasks. And that Stalin didnt kill Zhukov was proof of Zhukovs brilliance, after the war many heads would roll but Stalin didnt kill Zhukov he only demoted him. Trotsky was a rival and Stalin wanted all the power and didnt want to share anything with anyone. Anyone being a threat to Stalin real or imaginative was killed. Only Zhukov was left to live. Kulik and Voroshilov were not Zhukov. Zhukov did need help to fail but he didnt need help to win. When you are talking about Zhukov then this line is 100% correct that when Zhukov was allowed to give his orders and fight without any interferance from Stalin there you can see victory But when Stalin interfered there you can see defeat. We are not talking about Kulik, Voroshilov or any person but only Zhukov when it comes to Zhukov it is clear that the less Stalin interfered the better the red army did.
And not only I but Richard Overy credits Zhukov with saveing Leningrad and so does Simon Sebag Montefiore and many other historians as well(Deng 19:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC))
I have Overy's Russia's War in my hands right now and quote from page 100: "The important contribution Zhukov made was not strategic insight, much of which emanated from the General staff rather than from any one individual, but his willingness to represent the military voice at the highest level so that those strategic ideas could be nourished." Clearly Overy is not impressed with Zhukov's strategical abilities. Sigitas 15:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
That is one of the most absurd things I have ever read; completely uncontaminated by any logic at all. DMorpheus 21:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
After the war Zhukov was on trial for looting and stealing in Germany. He was only left alive because of Stalin softness. Sigitas 07:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Again you ignore so much and miss the big picture. One of the main reasons the germans invaded was that they wanted to inslave the Soviet Union and develop the economical and industrial potential on the back of russian slave labour. You ignore the fact that the germans looted much much more then Zhukov, you ignore that the germans built concentration camps and that by the time Zhukov had reached german borders that around 20 million soviets were dead. So you excpect that after the germans invaded, tried to inslave the soviets and had built concentration camps that Zhukov should be nice to the germans and give them hugs and kisses? (Deng 11:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
Your speculations are irrelevant here. No matter what Germans did, Stalin did not approve his officers looting occupied countries and many thiefs like Zhukov were sentenced. Sigitas 13:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Speculations, it is you who speculate because you havent read enough books you must read more or you will never learn anything. "Stalin did not approve his officers looting occupied countries and many thiefs like Zhukov were sentenced" and that is completly wrong but you will never find out why if you keep on stiking your head in the sand and refuse to read anything (Deng 14:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
this is just personal attack without any informational value for the article Sigitas 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No it is not a personal attack if you want to learn more you must read more. That is my opinion if a person wishes to learn more then that person must read more. (Deng 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
Whatever. Content must be verifiable. Historians like Sokolov (Неизвестный Жуков: портрет без ретуши в зеркале эпохи) and Suvorov do not think that Zhukov was great general and Zhukov often lied to look better. Sigitas 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Books, year of publication and page numbers please (Deng 18:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
Соколов Б.В. Неизвестный Жуков: портрет без ретуши в зеркале эпохи. — Мн.: Родиола-плюс, 2000 — 608 с. («Мир в войнах»). ISBN 985-448-036-4. Тираж 15000 экз.

Sokolov for example argues that Zhukov lied dismissing his own fault in destroying 5th and 33rd armies in 1942

Sokolov also points that Zhukov lied about planning of operations in 1941, and that Zhukov was initiator of unsuccessful counterattacks:

Suvorov in his books “Take my words back” and “Shadow of victory” did not say a good word about Zhukov and did not find one victory of Zhukov while he finds Zhukov's memoirs having no relationship with reality.

First of all, please don't go and quote Suvorov, as it is clearly considered as Original Research as most historians do not recognize his works (hence beware WP:NOR). Secondly, as some people previously said, one can't blame Zhukov for every disaster on Eastern Front and lack of preparation. Thirly, battles like Khalkhin Gol and defense of Leningrad ARE certainly brilliant successes, not counting battle of Berlin and a few others. Sure, Zhukov had one stinging defeat (operation Mars), but heh, who did not? Overall, Zhukov had several important victories.

The main reproach that could be addressed to Zhukov is his complete disregard for human lives. But that has not much to do with strategy. When you play chess and you sacrifice a piece to gain considerable tactical advantage, are you a crappy strategist? One of WWII's characteristics was a complete disregard for human lives, both military and civilian, on both sides. Let's not load all this on Zhukov... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 : WP:NOR speaks about original research of wikipedians not original research of professional historians. Sigitas 19:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 : BS. Quoting WP:NOR : "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source." Suvorov is NOT a reputable source. "An edit counts as original research if it [...] introduces original ideas".
 : Publishing an article based on a book of a revisionnist would be OR, regardless of the wikipedian who edited the article. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This is just a rule you invented yourself. There is no such rule in Wikipedia. Sigitas 15:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You get your info from the internet ANYONE can write ANYTHING on the internet and a book written in russian there is no way I can check that. But the books by Richard Overy And John Erickson both well known british professors say the same thing which is that he was brilliant (Deng 22:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Deng, it is your own problem that you don't know languages. There are, however, wikipedians here who know Russian . Sources in other languages are perfectly valid.

Grafikm, Suvorov is reputable secondary source, even if you personally don't like him and this source is OK according to according to What counts as a reputablepublication [1]. He always provide primary sources. Revisionist or not, it is facts that matter. "The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article. Moreover, by reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view in an article. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutral point of view policy." Declaring that Zhukov is brilliant despite so great military defeats is not neutral - it's bias. This brilliance stuff is not verifiable, if "brilliant strategitian" blindly followed orders of others. Sigitas 15:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh, at first I thought you were a harmless troll, but now I begin to see where your opinions lead to... Do you share the ideas of Holocaust Denial? If you do, please take care. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Definition of a reputable source: "Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan?". Yes, Suvorov is openly partizan and his works are not recognized by his peers. CRLF, next paragraph. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
"Partisan - a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance." Merriam Webster. I see many uncritical fans of Zhukov here, but Suvorov is not one. Suvorov is not academical writer, and he has no need for academical peer reviews. Wikipedia article on Viktor Suvorov shows that many Russian historians share his ideas (V.D.Danilov, V.A.Nevezhin, Meltiukhov and B.V. Sokolov). Sigitas 10:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Suvorov aka Rezun is a complete joke who messes up basic facts and makes global conclusions afterwards; Sokolov, now that's open partisan who can't do simple math if it contradicts his ridiculous theories; Meltyukhov is okay, but claiming that he "shares same ideas" is way too bold statement. (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Zhukov was General Chief of Staff before Germans attacked and during start of the war. He commanded all Soviet armies, conducted preparations before the war and people are still saying he is not to blame for the losses? Honestly, if you are saying that "Stalin commanded everything" then your beloved marshal is just a puppet who cannot be given credit for any of the victories in that war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

NO he was brilliant[edit]

Ok generally speaking when Zhukov was put in charge of Leningrad his main priority was to sort the mess left by Voroshilov, whose main strategy was to abandon the city and focus on street fighting. In such circumstances Zhukov had to take desperate actions against the advancing armies. When a frantic commander is trying to organise troops and at the same time hold back the enemy to a city knowing that his failure to do so would cost his life. Yes he did send troops into the fray to buy TIME, Eventually he was successful in grouping the troops to a point where the enemy lost the initiative, build good defences and then left it to Govorov, as Zhukov was called to more important battles elsewhere. --Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 19:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just fantasies. Can we see this Voroshilov's plan to anbandon city? Sigitas 20:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure find it here [2] about september 1941 there comes a slide which says:
8 Сентебря Немцы вышли к южному берегу Ладожского озера. Одновременно с севера на город наступали Финские войска. На следующий день уже передовые немецкие части уже вели бои на городских окраинах. Командующий Ленинградским фронтом маршал Ворошилов и партийное руководство Ленинграда впали в состояние, близкое к паническому и отдавали истериченые приказы - например о вооружения питерских рабочих пиками (которые получили призрительное произвище <<копья Ворошилова>>) и финскими ножами. После того как Ворошилов приказал готовить к уничтожению корабли Балтийского флота, Сталин отсранил его от должности командующем фронтом и земенил его генаралом армии Жуковым.
Новый командующий немедленно запретил подготовку к сдаче Ленинграда, приказал перебросить войска с Карельского перешейка и помощью флота ораганизовать плотный заградительный артилирийский огонь на опасных направлениях. Командирам всех уровней Жуков объевил, что за любое отступления войск со ввереных им участках они понесут персональную ответственность вплоть до расстрела. В результате этих мер немецкое наступления на Ленинград захлебнулось и 18 сентебря фронт стабилизировался.--Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 20:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing in this text showing that adminitration of Leningrad was planing to abandon city and this text is not a document. Sigitas 15:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact now it has an english version [3] and the text is official chronology. I would trust it rather than your claims--Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interestested in your unreferenced slides. It's not a valid source for encyclopedia. Sigitas 21:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Those slides are official if in doubt you can find references. --Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. It is not a purpose of Wikipedia to represent official views of Russian government. Sigitas 14:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Please watch your tone, negligince is a very bad human quality...and so far you are yet to provide a counterreference that this did not happen.--Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 16:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I gave my counterreference yesterday: [[4]]. While on September 17-18 Zhukov was "saving" Leningrad , main German forces from Leningrad were far on their way to Moscow according to their plans. No one tried to take Leningrad. There were no plans and no attempts to take Leningrad during Zhukov's presence in leningrad. The only orders after September 5 from Hitler were to arrange blockade of Leningrad and move to Moscow. No one provided any german plans to take the city during Zhukov's stay in Leningrad. If I'm wrong please give reference to such order of Hitler or von Leeb.Sigitas 16:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Leningrad has been explained, look in real books made by real people and you will see. Many books have been mentioned. (Deng 17:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Again you ignore what the germans did. The germans came to inslave the soviets they came to exterminate the Soviets. The Germans looted on a huge scale. So after the germans had come to inslave and exterminate the Soviets according to you hte soviets should have given them hugs and kisses? The soviets did not build extermination camps they did not inslave the germans but if they had done that would have only equalled exactly what the germans did. You ignore what the germans did and then you call Zhukov a thief. But in war the victor always takes from the defeated party. The americans and british did the same thing. And you ignore that the Germans tried to inslave and exterminate the soviets and that the germans lotted on a huge scale not only did they want to inslave and exterminate the soviets they also stole everything they could get their hands on but you ignore all of that only see what the Soviets did. with your logic Zhukov is also a murder and a killer since he did give orders to kill many people. So why dont you start this article and every article about any military leader that XXXXX was a murder and a killer he gave orders to kill people. (Deng 17:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Why are Irpen's references, allegedly proving that Zhukov is regarded as good strategist, back in article? Nothing in sources he referenced says Zhukov was good strategist, except soviet time quote from Vasilevsky. Sigitas 12:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm a source has been given and you even replied after the source was given, the source was given by user "Deng" he said" Page 99 in russia's war and you will see him calling him a genius as well and you will find out that he was sent to leningrad twice" and you replied to this.(RabbitHead 17:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC))
Overy calls him a "soldier of genius", not an impressive strategist. I agree that Zhukov was exceptional bully and brilliantly cruel. About Zhukov strategist Overy says: "The important contribution Zhukov made was not strategic insight, much of which emanated from the General staff rather than from any one individual, but his willingness to represent the military voice at the highest level so that those strategic ideas could be nourished." Russia's war, Penguin, year 1999, page 100. Thus Overy daoes not think that Zhukov provided some important strategical insights or was better strategist than other officers in General Staff. Oh, and he was sent to Leningrad only once in 1941. Sigitas 17:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First you are not qouteing the same book as the other guy, secondly I dont know from what planet you are from but here on earth this "but his willingness to represent the military voice at the highest level so that those strategic ideas could be nourished" is extremly important when you have an idot like Stalin demanding counter attacks everyhwere. And after reading the talk page here one thing is certain you have a very wrong and incorrect view about everything (RabbitHead 20:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC))
I'm quoting the same book - Russia's War by Overy. Sigitas 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read that book and many others and I know that Overy calls him brilliant probably on page 99 as the other guy pointed out. When reading the talk page here and looking at the history of the page one thing has become clear. The problem here is YOU. You are on a one man mission against Zhukov, why -- who knows. You avoid answering direct questions you jump over huge and important facts and then you draw wrong conclusions. For example you can not understand that Stalin was in charge and Zhukov had to do what Stalin said and wanted. Stalin wanted counter attacks Zhukov said maybe we should draw back to dig in consolidate and for that Zhukov was sacked in july 1941 and we all know what happened.
I'm not interested in your baseless stories. Stupid directive No.3 ordering to caunterattack has signature of Zhukov but there is no signature of Stalin. Sigitas 13:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Baseless I can give you a picture from Richard Overy "The Dictators" from 2005 also he points this out in russia's war and I do belive that it would be extremly hard to find one book where it is not pointed out that It was Stalin who demanded Counter attacks. Your biggest problem is that you can not understand that Stalin was the man. (RabbitHead 15:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC))
Richard Overy "The Dictators" from 2005 -- this is a book by this academician, who still insists that Zhukov and other Soviet warlords had secretly been 'provocing the Germans' (1937 hadn't taught'em a lesson) and planning a pre-emtive strike (and had-so asssumes Overy-presented the skech to Stalin as an unpleasant surprise). I don't see any reason why we should prefer such books by these naive Western intellectuals to those published by Russian researchers who are disputing the old conventions. --Constanz - Talk 15:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Look you trolls, none of pages quoted says that Zhukov was good strategist, except of quote of Vasilevsky. Why you keep pushing this crap? Sigitas 21:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


I think we could add interesting section about Zhukov's looting in Germany. Sigitas 17:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Listen, dude, if you want to add or remove something you have to reach consensus with other users. Voting is crucial, so please follow the Wikipedia guidelines before pushing your controversial agenda. KNewman 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial here, just plain facts. Sigitas 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Except that you ignore what the germans did. That the Germans them selves wanted to inslave the whole of the Soviet Union and that the Germans them selves looted on a much larger scale. (Deng 17:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC))
We are writing an article about Zhukov not Germans. Really controversial claim is about brilliant strategist and historians and wikipedians do not have consensus here. Zhukov is thief and as I see no one is contesting this fact, so why not include in article? Sigitas 20:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Would please provide refernces for your claims that Zhukov is thief (from credible sources please, no nationalist BS.) --Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 20:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
My secondary source - Sokolov's 'Unknown Zhukov' [5]. Boris Sokolov is doctor of history, professor at Moscow State University of Social Sciences. Sokolov quotes report of Bulganin (1946) on arrested furniture, report of Abakumov on results of search (10.1.1948). Sigitas 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Do not know if Suvorov-Rezun is a credible source, but I do not remeber somebody challenged the facts there: , .
This book is one of the biggest collections of BS existing. Not that all events it describes are false, but their analysis is flawed. The passage on atomic bomb alone is enough to make a diagnosis... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can make an Internet page the fact that real books made by real professors say the exact opposite of what you say proves that you have some Agenda against Zhukov (Deng 22:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC))
So now I invented Sokolov? If you are so paranoid you can buy hardcopies of his books [6]. He is an author of 30 monographies. He is professor at Moscow State University of Social sciences, dept of social anthropology [7]Sigitas 09:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been explained time and time again. Not only do you link to things that no one can check because it is not in english. You also use a source that is highly doubtful. The fact that The British Professors that have all done real research into the matter Richard Overy, John Erickson and academics such as Simon Sebag Montefiore and David Glantz all say the exact opposite of what you say more then enough provesthe case. (Deng 09:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC))
It is misleading to believe that foreign historians have better understanding of events in Russia than Russians themselves. How many of historians you named know Russian language? Sources in all languages are valid, many wikipedians know Russian and can verify sources. Which of British historians denies that Zhukov was stealing in Germany? Sigitas 12:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the way you put it in You totally ignore that the germans came to inslave the Soviets, you ignore that the nazies themselves looted on a much larger scale, you ignore that the germans built extermination camps and you ignore that in all wars people have always taken from the part that lost. You ignore everything in your campaign against Zhukov. And this is english wiki that needs to be sources with english sources. And all of the proffesors and academics above know russian and/or have goten wast amount of material translated. (Deng 13:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC))
There is no such requirement to provide only English references. Stop inventing your rules. Sigitas 15:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Again you ignore everything i have written. Why do you ignore what the germans did, that they came to inslave the soivets that there plan was to develop the soivet union on the back of russian slave labour. That the built extermination camps and that they looted on a much larger scale then anything that zhukov did. And that in all wars the victor takes from the defeated party. You can read more about useing sources here (Deng 20:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC))
See, this Verifiability article says sources in foreign languages are OK. 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Again you totally ignore what the germans did that they came to inslave the soivets that there plan was to develop the soivet union on the back of russian slave labour. That the built extermination camps and that they looted on a much larger scale then anything that zhukov did. And that in all wars the victor takes from the defeated party. And how much longer will you refuse to talk about what the germans did?(Deng 12:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC))
I ignore your appologies for Zhukov's actions, because moral speculations are not relevant here. We write encyclopedia and facts are important not your moral standpoint. Let readers decide is looting good or bad from moral view. looting episode is important because it explains why Zhukov was so silent and obedient until Stalin's death - Stalin could execute him any moment for his looting in Germany. Sigitas 09:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your conclusions are wrong, Stalin didnt kill Zhukov because he knew what Zhukov had done on the field and that he was a very tallented if not the most tallented officer in the whole of the red army. And you still ignore the fact that the germans came to inslave and exterminate the soviets. And useing sources that no one can check is in clear violation with wkik Verifiability. English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. (Deng 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
I don't mind you providing English sources on Zhukov's looting. You are free to replace Russian sources with English ones any time. My sources can by verified by any wikipedian who knows Russian. Sigitas 16:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Still you ignore what the germans did and still you ignore what was considered to be fair bounty in war. And Your sources do NOT fulfill the part that not only are they internet sources that can be made by anyone they are also in a foregin language.(Deng 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
If you are so keen to replace my sources on Zhukov's looting I can even recommend you The Fall of Berlin: 1945 By Antony Beevor [8]. Go ahead. I will not comment requirements you invented anymore. Sigitas 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again you ignore what real professors have said and you still keep on ignoreing what the germans said. Prof John Ericksson and Richard Overy and Academics such as David Glantz and Simon Sebag Montefiore all say the exact opposite of what you are saying. You draw your facts from home made interet pages and people who are extremly contraversial to say the very least. This has been discussed nad explaind over and over and over again and you still keep on ignoreing what the germans did and what the germans had for plans and your continued faliure to confirm what the germans did and what they had for plans speaks volumes of what you want to achive. (Deng 16:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
Do you say that I faked site of Moscow State University of Social Sciences and Sokolov is not a real professor? If you prefer hardcopy , you can buy hardcopy: Соколов Б.В. Неизвестный Жуков: портрет без ретуши в зеркале эпохи. — Мн.: Родиола-плюс, 2000 — 608 с. («Мир в войнах»). ISBN 985-448-036-4. Тираж 15000 экз. I'm not ignoring any of guys you named, you just forgot to provide counterreferences. So, which one British historian denies that Zhukov was stealing in Germany? Sigitas 16:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again you ignore what the germans did. The germans came to inslave the soviets they came to exterminate the Soviets. The Germans looted on a huge scale. So after the germans had come to inslave and exterminate the Soviets according to you the soviets should have given them hugs and kisses? The soviets did not build extermination camps they did not inslave the germans but if they had done that would have only equalled exactly what the germans did. You ignore what the germans did and then you call Zhukov a thief. But in war the victor always takes from the defeated party. The americans and british did the same thing. And you ignore that the Germans tried to inslave and exterminate the soviets and that the germans lotted on a huge scale not only did they want to inslave and exterminate the soviets they also stole everything they could get their hands on but you ignore all of that only see what the Soviets did. with your logic Zhukov is also a murder and a killer since he did give orders to kill many people. So why dont you start this article and every article about any military leader that XXXXX was a murder and a killer he gave orders to kill people. (Deng 17:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
Deng, this article is not about the actions of the German army, nor it is about the ethics behind looting in times of war. Sigitas is citing his sources. If you do not agree with these, provide others that say the opposite. What the Germans did or not, and whether you think Zhukov had the right to loot is irrelevant.-- (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Order 4976: "Kill all families of captured soldiers"[edit]

Zhukov's order No. 4976 from 28 September 1941 must be mentioned as a best example of Zhukov's brutality. 28 September 1941 Zhukov sent ciphered order No. 4976 to commanders of Leningrad Front and Baltic Navy to announce that families of soldiers captured by Germans will be shot and returned prisoners will also be shot.

"Вот шифрограмма № 4976, посланная 28 сентября 1941 года командующим Ленинградским фронтом Жуковым армиям фронта и Балтийскому флоту: «Разъяснить всему личному составу, что все семьи сдавшихся врагу будут расстреляны и по возвращении из плена они также будут все расстреляны».

(РГАСПИ, ф. 83 (Фонд Г.М. Маленкова), оп. 1, д. 18, л.) 18-19.[9] Sigitas 18:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

More information from home made internet pages that no one can check. Provide real references written in real books in english or go to the Russian wiki and write there. but in the english wiki use english references and not home made references that anyone can make from the internet. (Deng 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Contrary to Overy who mostly quotes secondary British sources, I gave even address where you can read original document in Russian state archives (Российский государственный архив социально-политической истории - Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History). Sigitas 20:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This proves how little you know. Richard Overy went into the Soviet archives and studied them for many years, your comments prove how little you actually know. This is 100% wrong "Contrary to Overy who mostly quotes secondary British sources" and proves once and for all that you pull your facts out of thin air and use any home made internet page to support your agenda.(Deng 02:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC))
Don't worry, one day Britain also will have modern WW2 historiography. It is only natural that British historiography lags behind Russian as Brits do not know language and don't have that easy access to newly published ww2 documents. Sigitas 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all almost all Historians in the world say the exact opposite of what you say in all matters, Overy is just one out of a million. You have been proven wrong in everything you have said and the only person who you use as a reference is the super anti soviet bias Viktor Suvorov. The facts remain almost everything you have wanted to add has been wrong or extremly twisted out of context. (Deng 13:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
1. I did not see Overy and other million historians saying that there was no order 4976. 2. I'm using Sokolov, not Suvorov, as my main reference. Order 4976 was discovered in archives only recently, it cannot be in old book of Overy. Sigitas 14:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And who does Sokolov base his info on Could it be Suvorov ;)? And as always you ignore the bigger picture, what was stalins order NO 270. And old books before the fall of the Union are where Suvorov books fit in, and most books written after that period more importantly written after 2000 Say and prove that you are wrong in everything you do. You twist and turn reality to fit your own twisted views. Which has been proven so many times here before in what you have tried to get into the article and what you have tried to remove. And as always you ignore everything like you ignored what the germans did and call Zhukov a thief you also ignore that Stalin was in charge of the army and that it was under him that the Red Army failed and it was only when Zhukov got to atleast to give advice that things started to improve and most importantly you ignore Stalins NO 270 in august 1941 which condemned all captured soviet soldiers as traitors to the motherland and penalized their families. And the fact remains that your fantsy rewrite of the english internet links proves that what ever you see or how you see it has almost nothing in commen with what the facts actually say. As always you take out bits of information one word here another word there then add them togheter so that the only thing in commen they have with the origianl text is perhaps "the" and "and" everything else is just your fantasy rewrite. (Deng 15:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
Stalin's order No. 270 was really humane compared to Zhukov's order. Stalin's order 270 did not order to shoot deserters or their families. Indeed we can iclude order 270 to contrast brutality of Zhukov to softness of Stalin. Sigitas 15:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No Stalins order is exactly as I said it, softness of stalin that must be the first time those words have ever been used in the same sentance, which proves once again that you are on a one man mission to miscredit zhukov. And you still ignore what the germans did as always (Deng 17:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC))


It is interesting that Zhukov in 1921 received his first order (Order of the Battle Red Banner) for brutal extermination of poorly armed non-communist peasants rebels in Tambov.[10] Sigitas 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

the only intresting thing is that Zhukov defended Moscow against the Germans with only 90,000 men against a few million and was able to stop a few million germans with only 90K men that is the only intressting. (Deng 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
I don't think fellow wikipedians agree with you that we should delete everything in this article except Moscow campaign Sigitas 15:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And I dont think that fellow wikipedians see the world as you see it. We have a perfect exmple of your twisting of reality in how you have tried to twist real events into fantasy versions. (Deng 17:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

I don't understand why you even bother to mention that you find the circumstances of his Order of the Battle Red Banner intresting on this talk page. No one really cares whether or not you find this intresting, as it has no bearing on the factual accuracy or inaccuracy of the award. (non user)

Zhukov's execution of an officer[edit]

I have seen a reputable scholar talk about Zhukov executing officer. Soviet wounded soldiers were ona bridge in Germany and Zhukov ordered that tanks went through the bridge right away, which would result in crushing those soldiers by tanks, when the officer responsible made that comment Zhukov took a pistol and shot him in the head and ordered next officer to make the order. The officer did so and the tank rolled over several people killing them. It happened in Germany IIRC. Can somebody confirm this ? --Molobo 19:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and I heard that Aliens landed in Roswell as well...--Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 19:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I already found evidence of at least one execution. --Molobo 19:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And there is evidence of Aliens landing...--Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 19:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please beheave in serious manner, here is the story of one execution [11] --Molobo 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"And unofficial rumor had it that he personally executed the officer in charge."
Unofficial rumor. Read that again. Unofficial rumor is not the same as "proven fact". -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
You didn't read till the end. At the end Zhukov admitted that it happened.

--Molobo 19:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. A phrase that is ambigous to say the least, a few vodkas and a not-so neutral witness can get you almost everywhere. Besides, where is the source for that statement? Where is the original narrative of that General and things like that? Hot air, nothin' more than that. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your personal views are of no relevance here. The story is present in credible book and should be noted. --Molobo 19:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Present, probably, yes. Proved, no. All we have is a vague statement with no supported sources. Not something that would be qualified as reliable evidence (contrary to beforementionned nuclear tests, for instance). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the story. [12] --Molobo 19:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Replied above. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia - Joseph Brodsky[edit]

Nobel Laureate Joseph Brodsky’s poem ‘’На смерть Жукова’’ (On the Death of Zhukov) is regarded by critics as one of the best poems on the war written by an author of the post-Second World War generation and shoulkd be included in article. Here is the text of this poem [13] Sigitas 15:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, he it wrote. But Your link now is broken.
Here is alive ))
WBR (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. below is what we talking about )) (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Article's lock[edit]

The article was locked following the persistent removal by user:Legionas of the mainstream assesment of Zhukov as a strategist. This is the comparison of the text that included a statement "It is widely accepted that Zhukov was a brilliant strategist". The statement is sourced to several well respected books and following the persistent removal by Legionas' the article was locked. If this phrase is not restored, I request the "Contemporary opinion" sections is tagged with {{POV-Section}}. The article can't just stay locked with sourced information removed and the reader not warned about the ongoing disagreement. --Irpen 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
None of linked articles were calling Zhukov good strategist. There was not one sentence provided with words "Zhukov" and "strategist". I don't mind including statement "some historians regard Zhukov as good strategician" if such citation will be indeed provided. Sigitas 11:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Sigitas. I don't know who the Sokolov guy is, but I happen to trust Col. Glanz analysis of WWII events; he got quite a bit of peer-reviewed papers, apart from the books. Admittedly, he is not much into the personalities of Russian commanders, but nowhere does Glanz actually stress the strategist's skills of Zhukov. See also (Sir) Carver, Michael (1976). The War Lords: Military Commanders Of The Twentieth Century. ISBN 0316130605. Carver, too, is kinda careful in his assessment of Zhukov's talents as a strategist. Based mainly on Carter's accounts, I'd say the image of Zhukov is that of a fierce, medieval type of commander rather than some brilliant strategist.--Yavrey 05:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


There is a conflict over the lead of the article. I think the phrase: who, in the course of World War II, led the Red Army to liberate the Soviet Union from the Nazi occupation, to overrun much of Eastern Europe, and to capture Hitler's capital, Berlin is incorrect and should be removed. Zhukov did not lead the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War. If anybody Stalin led the Army. Zhukov was the Chief of Staff (in disastrous 1941), one of the Front Commanders and one of the Deputies to the Commander-in-Chief.

Obviously the variant of the Chiefly Responsible for the Military Catastrophes is even worse - it is POV and at any rate Zhukov was not Chiefly Responsible, Stalin was.

I think we could remove the phrase all together. Alternatively we could compile the list of the key points of his career: as leader of .. led the Red Army to victory at Khalkhin-Gol, as the chief of the Staff, partially responsible for the military catastrophe of 1941, led to the Victory on Moscow, one of the planners for Stalingrad, Leader of 1-st Ukrainian Front that took Berlin, led the Victory Parade, Chief of the Occupational Troops in Germany, Minister for Defence. Any ideas? abakharev 22:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with partly responsible of 1941. And we should add Rzhev-1942 as his only (but quite big) military defeat, which was not even mentionned in "service use only" books till the 70s.
All other POV allegations should be removed. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That is OK with me. So we are after the long version of the lead? abakharev 23:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is not only the lead. Pointing to Sokolov as the only reference (while it is as questionnable as Suvorov-Rezun) of Zhukov's poor strategy is quite disturbing. The past-1991 decade in Russia saw its cortège of pseudo-historians, pseudo-scientists claiming various "discoveries" and so on. So caution must be applied when dealing with those, as ideology is never too far away in those books (just as it is the case in the Soviet books btw).
As for "poorly educated", it is blatant POV. Yes, he was a peasant, so what? Do you think that back in 1914, everyone had a high school diploma? Not hardly. A bunch of famous people never went to college :)))
Why only in 1914? Nothing changed until 1974 and he died poorly educated. Why don't you list his academic achievements if you object? Sigitas 11:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "academic achievements"? Zhukov, as all senior commanders, graduated from officers' courses in 1925 and in 1930 (resp. for mid and senior commanders).
And finally, Zhukov graduated from Tolmachev's military and political academy in 1937. For what it's worth it was considered as a university in the URSS.
Sure, these are all military studies but heh, he was a soldier after all... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Btw, as I prolly already said, the exact definition of "brilliant strategist" needs to be defined, because it is quite blurred as it is. What are criteria for a brilliant strategist? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the opening paragraph is appropriate. Zhukov was NOT the supreme commander of the RKKA, so stating that he "led the red army" to victory is completely innacurate. I don't want to alter it before I get more opinions on this matter. With respect, Ko Soi IX 08:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I have unprotected the article, please implement the changes discussed on the talk page abakharev 12:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Under controversy[edit]

In the controversy section, a "40,000 ton" nuclear bomb is mentioned. Is a 40 kiloton yeild weapon meant, or is it meant that the weapon weighed 40,000 pounds? The former seems more likely, but some early weapons weighed an incredible amount.

What is wrong with Vasilevsky's quote?[edit]

I don't know what exactly is supposed to be wrong with Vasilevsky's quote referenced by Deng, "In the constellation of Soviet generals who so conclusively defeated the armies of Nazi Germany, he was the most brilliant of all". An appreciation from the former Chief of Staff is not something easily thrown away.

If your argument is that Vasilevsky was a Soviet Marshal and therefore necessarily had a positive opinion about Zhukov, I suggest you read Rokossovsky and what he says about Zhukov. Not something flattering, indeed... It is better than engaging in revert wars... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote of Vasilevsky is OK, but it should be provided as opinion of Vasilevsky, not as opinion of contemorary historians. Ooops, Tony Le Tissier, indeed regards Zhukov as great strategist, noticed only now, my bad. What about Amy Knight, Archer Jones? No such claims on referenced pages. Sigitas 21:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Since I was not the one to list all these references in that footnote, heh.... I only mention Vasilevsky because I read his memoirs and I saw his quote in the first book listed. What I'm talking about is your way of deleting information instead of editing it with words like "according to...", "XXX considers...", "Nevertheless, this opinion could be considered biaised because..." and so on. See what I mean? :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You only mention Vasilevsky but today you put those unrelated links to the article. You shlould not post stuff you did not read. Sigitas 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point. But since SuperDeng is blocked, you could at least give him the benefit of doubt... Anyway, I went through his refs, removed two of them and quoted the two others.
If you're further interested, you should read Rokossovsky's memoirs, where he's not very polite about Zhukov... There is also the fact that his biggest defeat (Rzhev) was deemed secret till the 1970s... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


From E-mail by User:SuperDeng:

This line here is misrepresented by Legionas

However, it is important to notice that Zhukov did not leave any theoretical
works on military strategy or tactics. Therefore, several post-Soviet era
historians no longer regard Zhukov as an outstanding strategist <ref> Richard
Overy. ‘’Russia’s war’’. Penguin Books, 1999. p. 100
On page 99 Richard Overy calls him a brilliant strategist and on page 100
all he says is that he didnt leave any works after him which Legionas
misrepresnts into post-Soviet era historians no longer regard Zhukov as an
outstanding strategist which is incorrect.

I have slightly edited the original E-mail to avoid personal attacks abakharev 22:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If he is right why he did not provide quote from Overy? I have this book and it does not say that.Sigitas 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Denial of signing the order[edit]

I don't understand, why do you keep removing the part about Zhukov stating that he was forced to sign the directive of Peoples' Commissariat of Defence No. 3? And I keep seing this comment about the whole world knowing that Stalin was in control. How does that contradict this statement? Stalin obviously did have supreme authority and he could force Zhukov to sign the directive, he did that on several occasions so that if something failed he wouldn't be to blame. So please stop removing this sentence unless you provide an actual reason to do so. TSO1D 13:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The text of the memoirs explaining this: "Затем генерал Н. Ф. Ватутин сказал, что И. В. Сталин одобрил проект директивы № 3 наркома и приказал поставить мою подпись.

— Что это за директива? — спросил я.

— Директива предусматривает переход наших войск к контрнаступательным действиям с задачей разгрома противника на главнейших направлениях, притом с выходом на территорию противника.

— Но мы еще точно не знаем, где и какими силами противник наносит свои удары, — возразил я. — Не лучше ли до утра разобраться в том, что происходит на фронте, и уж тогда принять нужное решение.

— Я разделяю вашу точку зрения, но дело это решенное.

— Хорошо, — сказал я, — ставьте мою подпись. "

Basically it says that Stalin approved the 3'rd directive. Zhukov didn't know what it was, he was told it was a measure for a general counterattack, Zhukov said it might be better to see how the situation at on front was developing, but was informed that the issue was already decided, so he signed the document.

I don't understand if the rest of the paragraph about the incident is to be kept why not mention the fact that Zhukov claimed he was forced to sign the directive? TSO1D 13:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You are not geting it he wasent forced to do anything there is no denial. This is how most likely it was.
Stalin: we must counter attack
Zhukov: ok, and goes off to inform the troops.
And as says anything unsourced can be removed and that " however there is no documented proof of this." is so wrong and so unsourced. And more to the point the person who added it has added ALL the anti zhukov things here and if you read this talk page history you can see that that same person has tried to add even more crazy things and you can also see this from Richard Overy "The Dictators" from 2005 and that says it all. And all of therse sources that you add are all in russian and from internet pages. Anyonecan make an internet page anyone one for any reason (BobShoe 01:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
I don't understand what you are trying to say. He did sign the document as he signed many others, it was standard procedure, although Stalin had ultimate authority. And the passage about this whole event is not unsourced, it is backed by Zhukov's own memoirs. It exists online, that's true, but that's just the text from the physical book copied to Thus this certainly satsifies WP:VER. TSO1D 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
What is it not to understand the person who added it has added alot of anti zhukov things. And he the user who has added all the anti zhukov things wants to blame zhukov for everything that went bad in the red army and jumping over vasts amount of information in trying to do this for example not saying that he was fired. As the link shows zhukov was fired for suggesting that the red army dig in and defend. So there would be no problem of me adding that line now will there? (BobShoe 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

I would like to translate the russian quotation of Zhukov's memories posted by TSO1D. I can do it since I myself have the Zhukov's book 'Memories and reflexions' right now in my hands. Judge the man in his own words:

"(...)Later, General Vatutin said that Stalin have approved a project for the Directive No.3 of the People's Commissar and that he had give orders to me to sign it."

Here comes the dialogue part. I love it.

"Zhukov: What directive is that?

Vatutin: The directive allows the counterattack of our troops with the mission of defeating the enemy on the main directions and to enter enemy territory.

Zhukov: We do not know exactly where is attacking the enemy nor its strength. Would not be better to explore and the situation in the front until tomorrow and then take the necessary decision?

Vatutin: I agree with you but the decission is already taken.

Zhukov: Well, put my signature on."

For purists; the concordance of this translation with the russian quotation above is given by two words: Ватутин= Vatutin which appears on both's first sentences, and "Хорошо" which means "Well" in russian and appears on the last sentences of both quotations. Though I don't speak Russian I know some russian words and cirilic letters and I can assure you the quotation by TSO1D is accurate and belongs to the Zhukov's book.

(roquedalton 23:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

"Fairy tales..."[edit]

Apparently, User:Legionas has the power to determine what are fairytales and what are not, and this, without displaying sources. This anti-Zhukov pushing (without even quoting an author as Suvorov, mind you) is getting ridiculous. Incidentally, Suvorov mentions the same episode too. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have any sources confirming Zhukov's stories, go ahead. If you don't have - do not complain that I said there is no confirmation. Suvorov simply ridicules story of Zhukov on Kiev [14]. Zhukov on 29 July did not meet Stalin at all. As for "anti-Zhukov pushing", we have more than enough Zhukov lovers, it is time to bring in some objectivity.Sigitas 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I started a mediation case against this unbelievable POV-pushing. This has to end. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Update: the mediation case is open. You're welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Zhukov. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Article currently says: "Indeed, many of his battles were examples of some of the most lopsided victories of the Second World War, ending with complete annihilation of his opponent (for instance Operation Uranus)." when in fact it wasn't Zhukov's battle. Zhukov at the time of encirclement of Paulus was thousand miles away storming Rzhev-Sychevka and failing as usually. Sigitas 21:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but he concieved it along with Vasilevsky. Conceiving and executing are slightly different things. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Who says that Zhukov planned Stalingrad battle? Zhukov himself as usually. Plan was made and signed by Potapov and Vasilevsky on 30 July 1942, this plan is widely published. Zhukov was only introduced to this plan on september 12 - 1.5 months later. This means that planning and execution were made without Zhukov. Sigitas 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Blatant POV and lie. Let's see:
  • Let's take this one "Hew Strachan, European Armies and the Conduct of War, Routledge (UK), 1988, ISBN 0-415-07863-6, p.171" [15]
"On 13 September 1942, Zhukov and Vasilevsky persuaded Stalin to mount a counter-attack against these flanks and then to encircle and annihilate the German troops at Stalingrad". "Together with Vasilevsky, Zhukov shaped Russia's tactical doctrine". (ibid)
  • Let's take a Soviet historian, Shtemenko: "12 сентября 1942 года состоялось совещание И. В. Сталина с Г. К. Жуковым и А. М. Василевским. Верховный Главнокомандующий и оба докладчика не были удовлетворены итогами военных действий в районе Сталинграда. «Нужно искать иное решение» — таков был единодушный вывод, сделанный в результате обсуждения положения под Сталинградом. Жукову и Василевскому было поручено разработать замысел операции по разгрому ударных сил противника на Волге.
Всю следующую ночь Г. К. Жуков и А. М. Василевский провели у карты района Сталинграда. [...] Наконец карта замысла Жукова и Василевского была готова. Сталин с ними согласился: ключ к победе — в решительном контрнаступлении на южном фланге советско-германского фронта." (bold mine). I think any comments are rather useless.
  • Finally, let's take Vasilevsky himself: "Тут напрашивалось решение: организовать и провести контрнаступление, причем такое, которое не только радикально изменило бы обстановку в этом районе, но и привело бы к крушению все еще активно действующего южного крыла вражеского фронта. Такое решение было принято в середине сентября после обмена мнениями между И. В. Сталиным, Г. К. Жуковым и мною."
Conclusion: the fact Zhukov did not concieve Uranus is lie. And a bad one to top it off, not even reaching heights of Suvorov... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So, we have two sources based on Zhukov's own memoirs and one mentioning that the plan was created by Vasilievski after a chatter with Stalin and Zhukov. Does he mention whether they were discussing the plan or just the general strategic situation? Nope. //Halibutt 20:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


"Zhukov led the Red Army to liberate the Soviet Union from the Nazi occupation, to overrun much of Eastern Europe, and to capture Hitler's capital, Berlin."

Supreme commander of Red Army was Stalin not Zhukov. Sigitas 21:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed he was not. Zhukov was one of the commanders. Should be changed, in my opinion.--Barbatus 10:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Married? Kids?[edit]

did he have a family? If its mentioned i missed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I was wondering about that too. AadaamS (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

disputable fact[edit]

Someone on the history WWII project said that this article states, as an undisputed fact, that the Russian's were preparing to invade Germany in 1941. There's a simple clash with this fact: Why then, if the Russian armies were already on the border, did the German's meet virtually no resistance in the early days of "Barbarossa"? This simple logic makes this fact incredibly disputable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Concur with your basic idea. Although Stalin and Hitler knew they would one day fight, Stalin was caught with his pants down. The Soviets were in no way ready for a general war with Nazi Germany at that time...Engr105th 06:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This controversy is extremely well explored in Chris Bellamy's book 'Absolute War' (pgs 99 to 113). In fact there is no question, as expertly revealed with primary Russian sources, that the Russians were NOT planning to invade Germany, and in fact the only plans drawn up were contingency plans based on short-term and local counter-attacks into German occupied Poland in the case of German aggression. Furthermore, Bellamy also points out that the existence of a plan somewhere in no way signifies intentions, as, after all the US has military 'plans' for the invasions of Canada and Mexico, but certainly have no intention of doing so. The assertion of Russian intentions to invade Germany as fact is quite wrong, and needs to be changed.
While I am typing, I also find it interesting that there is no reference in the actual article to Operation Mars, the humiliating Zhukov defeat before Moscow in 1942. Surely an article on the Man should include a defeat of his so crushing and humiliating that Stalin felt the need to erase all reference to it from history? Nordenfeldt (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
About Soviet offensive plans there is a wikipedia article about it and nowhere it states that this is a "solved" matter or myth. Western historians tend to drop the concept, but eastern historians tend to put it on a "non-likely" to "probable" idea with the rethinking of Stalin Politics. - PHW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Greek say in war time truth alway first victim.

Soviet have two propaganda in Stalin era .First he make Zhukov greater than he was to make him a hero and give Soviet a hope to win. But the secend propaganda make Zhukov bad than he was because he fear Zhukov so he he want a reason to ruduce Zhukov power.

German and Western ally also have propaganda .When Soviet propaganda claim that German die more. German and Western propaganda make Soviet look like they have unlimit resource and can produce army as much as they want .They have only double population but lower GDP and they have to defend Japan front.When German have all Europe and every country support their miliary industry.

Many of modern historian do research .And we have a freedom to choose .For me David Glantz. Why because total catualty ratio is more likely .When German have to use old men and boy to fight in late war because they lake of men .And Russia was not in crisis like that.Russia have double population so they likely to die more but should not over than 2 on 1 ratio .

In October 1941, when the Germans were closing in on Moscow, Zhukov replaced Semyon Timoshenko in command of the central front and was assigned to direct the defense of Moscow.So Semyon Timoshenko responsible on battle in 1941 .And Zhukov responsible on battle only in late 1941 and after that include battle of Moscow.

Alexander Novikov[edit]

Shouldn't this article mention the forced confession of Alexander Novikov? in reading that articke, I followed the link to Zhukov and was quite surprised to find no reference to the details of the falling out with Stalin or the conspiracy Novikoz supposedly confessed to that landed him in prison. Details about this would help tie the articles together and present a more coherent picture of the subject. 20:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources and their credibility[edit]

Many of the sources (4,8,9,11,13,14,16,24,25,26,27,28,31,32,33,35) are Russian, which means they can't be checked by English-language speakers. There is a Russian site of Wikipedia and I think that if you post on the English site the sources should be English. If it means shortening your story so be it. It is better to have no information than information people can't check.

--Burds 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

600 death penalties[edit]

Entry needs a reference and more detail. Who received the death penalties? Soviet or Chinese or 3rd parties? Spies, soldiers, officers, civilians? Why did this happen? Were the penalties carried out? Also, "issued" is fairly passive--"ordered" probably works better, though I don't know the facts. Binksternet 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is V. V. Karpov?[edit]

In the article it says "Hero of the Soviet Union V. V. Karpov". But he is not mentioned in Hero of the Soviet Unition page of wikipedia and not much about him can't be found anywhere in the net. El Ucca (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He is a Hero of Soviet Union and a writer. His biographical three volume work is available here --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With proper inline citations, this article could easily be a B class --dashiellx (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph[edit]

The opening paragraph contains an innacuracy in it's claim that "Zhukov led the Red Army" - it's an undisputable fact that the supreme commander of the RKKA was Stalin, thus it is him who "led the Red Army". With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC).

He was appointed chief of the General Staff of the RKKA in Feb 1941. What do you call that? DMorpheus (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly that, a chief of the General Staff (btw, Zhukov held that position only until July 29, 1941 being replaced by Shaposhnikov, who in turn was later (de-facto since april, de-jure since june 1942) replaced by Vasilevskiy), the second man in command (in theory, the Soviet reality was somewhat different). However, the supreme commander was Stalin, thus if any one man can be credited with leading the Red Army, it would him. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, the nature of the Soviet state was such that Stalin controlled everything and allowed little real independence. But that explains almost nothing. It's not as if Stalin personally managed every aspect of every organization in the USSR. He gave others real responsbility and, as we all know, didn't hesistate to ruthlessly punish those he found wanting. Nevertheless Zhukov held the top post in the Red Army; saying so is not inaccurate. DMorpheus (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the chief of the General Staff is not the top post, the top post being that of the supreme commander. That post was occupied by Stalin, who, unlike his contemporaries such as Churchill, held a military rank. Stalin didn't have to "personally manage EVERY aspect" etc, that is just a ridiculous point to make - but Stalin had the last word in strategic desisions, if that is not leadership, than tell me what is. However, even if this were not true, Zhukov still didn't "lead the Red Army to liberate the Soviet territory" - due to him being sacked from the post in question after the terrible defeats suffered by the RKKA in the summer of 1941. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Stalin never held the formal post of "supreme commander" - that's a term used in the west, for example with SHAEF. In the Red Army as with many armies, the Chief of Staff is the top dog. Stalin held a "military rank" beginning halfway through the war, which he awarded himself; he never served as a soldier unless you count his commissar time during the civil war. If you call Stalin the head of the red army would you call hitler the head of the german armed forces? DMorpheus (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You got me there, there was no formal post of "supreme commander", the "top dog" post was called "People's Commissar for Defence", a post held by Semyon Timoshenko until Stalin replaced him in June 1941. However, this is just a technicality - which does not in any way alter the fact that Zhukov wasn't the "top dog" during or before the war, and thus didn't "lead" the RKKA to anything. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

zhukov in the great patriotic war[edit]

this part is a joke....

zhukovs made so much failures, operation bagration used 2,4 million soldiers to destroy the exhausted army group central ( 800000 soldiers ), the operation was well planed but brilliant is "bullshit". at operation mars he shows incompetence again. his attack on berlin ( seelow heights ) was "stupid" again. iam interested in the names of historians who call this men brilliant.

the whole text is a joke best regards --HROThomas (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Contemporary opinion" section deleted[edit]

My apologies for forgetting to fill in the edit reason field. Anyway, I have taken that section out of the article because it is completely POV--it had "opinion" in the title, for goodness' sake--and mostly POV against Zhukov. The revisionist claims that Zhukov wasn't a good general don't strike me as very credible when you look at his history of success, but in any case Wikipedia is not supposed to argue whether he was a good general or not. I have also deleted the paragraphs dedicated to advancing Viktor Suvorov's anti-Zhukov opinions, and added further material from other historians disagreeing with his revisionist views about the summer of 1941. I believe this has taken the POV out of the article and made it more balanced and more focused on the facts of Zhukov's life rather than arguments about him. Vidor (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"The revisionist claims that Zhukov wasn't a good general don't strike me as very credible when you look at his history of success" winning battle with overwhelming superority in everything makes no "good" commander, particulary when he looses tremendous numbers of soldiers.... -- HROThomas (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


I will remove this: I appreciate in British military contexts it is notable. However it is not in Soviet writing, if the intent is to show decorations. In Soviet and Russian biographies, more notice would be paid to the fact that he was four-time Hero of the Soviet Union, by beginning like "Zhukov, G. K., Marshal of the Soviet Union, four time Hero of the Soviet Union", and this is in official writing.

Feel free to revert me since this is Wikipedia. However Zhukov's British knighthood is not notable in the wider scheme of things. (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Controversy[edit]

In the controversies section that article has this paragraph:

"In 1954, Zhukov was in command of a nuclear weapon test at Totskoye range, 130 miles (210 km) from Orenburg. A Soviet Tu-4 bomber dropped a 40 kiloton atomic weapon from 25,000 feet (7,600 m). He watched the blast from an underground nuclear bunker while about 5,000 Soviet military personnel staged a mock battle and about 40,000 troops were stationed about 8 miles (13 km) away from the epicentre. The number of soldiers killed, injured or made infertile as a result of the explosion is unknown because of the secrecy surrounding the event."

However there is no reference given. I'm going to delete the paragraph now but if somebody finds a reference for it just copy & paste it back in from the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bickle76 (talkcontribs) 03:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my earlier edit was reverted by A8UDI but there is still no reference given in the article. Can somebody please find/add a reference to support the claim or delete it. Such a significant allegation should be sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bickle76 (talkcontribs) 22:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-emptive strike deleted[edit]

One sentence, no source, no context. If this is to be mentioned in the article, it should be dealt with properly: the plan of 15 May, what misguided revisionists like Viktor Suvorov think it means, what better historians think it means, etc. It certainly shouldn't be mentioned so casually and as a settled fact. Either a paragraph containing all of this info or nothing. Vidor (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Red on Red: Zhukov VS Konev[edit]

Before the start of the Berlin Offensive, Soviet Marshals Georgy Zhukov and Ivan Konev argued with each other over who would attack Berlin and receive the symbolic honor of raising the Soviet Flag over the Reichstag on May Day, the deadline which was ordered by Joseph Stalin for the capture of Berlin. Stalin, who was secretly jealous of Marshal Zhukov's popularity in the Red Army, had encouraged this rivalry first by reducing Zhukov's command, from three army fronts to one army front, and then by redrawing the operational boundary between the 1st Belorussian Front and the 1st Ukranian Front to end just south of the Reichstag. This would permit Marshal Konev to move into Berlin and started off a competitive race between the two for the capture of Berlin and the Reichstag which ultimately ended in a "Red on Red" Friendly Fire incident when troops of the 1st Belorussian Front were hit by artillery fire from the 1st Ukranian Front which had supposedly misidentified Zhukov's advancing Soviet forces for retreating Germans. As a result of this, Stalin redrew the operational boundary one last time which halted Konev's advance and gave Zhukov the full honor of capturing the Reichstag.

Reference: "The Conquerors: Zhukov" by the History Channel --Arima (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Top-level contradiction[edit]

So the article says in the introduction that Zhukov was a brilliant strategist.

But then the main body of the text is mostly discrediting Zhukov (except a few exceptional glimpses, like the Japan incident), and showing him as some kind of sloppy guy that was at the right place at the right time, and things were kind of attributed to him. Or we get a list of positions that he held but we are told nothing about his achievements during that time.

So I don't understand, the article is very contradictory right now. It seems that somebody has really something against Zhukov. Last time that I read this article it was much more laudatory to Zhukov. Right now it's just discrediting him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Zukov's ouster not explained[edit]

The section that should deal with Zukov's purge by Krushchev appears to be missing. It jumps straight from his disagreements with Krushchev to his rehabilitation under Breshnev. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a mention: "Zhukov supported the interests of the military and disagreed with Khrushchev's policy. The same issue of Krasnaya Zvezda that announced Zhukov's return to Moscow also reported that Zhukov had been relieved of his duties. Khrushchev, demonstrating the dominance of the Party over the army, had relieved Zhukov of his ministry and expelled him from the Central Committee." ([16]). It might not be the best way to say so (for example, some dates wouldn't hurt), but it is there. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


At the moment ([17]) the plan of the main part of the article is this:

  1. Career before World War II
    1. Nomonhan (Khalkhin Gol)
    2. 1940
  2. World War II
    1. Postwar
  3. Career after World War II
    1. Minister of Defense
    2. In retirement
  4. Controversies

It doesn't seem to be a good plan. For example, the section "1940" mostly describes what happened in 1941. Section "World War II" describes events between German invasion of USSR and Soviet Victory parade, while its name would indicate the period between German invasion of Poland and surrender of Japan. And the content of section "Controversies" could be simply distributed among other sections.

Russian ([18]), German ([19]) and French ([20]) articles seem to have a better plan... Looking at them, perhaps it would be a good idea to change the plan of this article to something like this:

  1. Early life, World War I, Russian Civil War (1896-1923)
  2. From the end of Russian Civil War (or from the time Zhukov became commander of a regiment) to the conflict with Japan (1923-1939)
  3. From the conflict with Japan to the German invasion of USSR (1939-1941)
  4. From the German invasion of USSR to the surrender of Germany (1941-1945)
  5. From the surrender of Germany to the death of Stalin (1945-1953)
  6. From the death of Stalin to the expulsion from the Central Committee of CPSU and dismissal from the army (1953-1958)
  7. From the expulsion from the Central Committee of CPSU and dismissal from the army to the death (1958-1974)

However, we would need better names than this... Some seem rather obvious (for example, "Retirement" for the last one), but I can't think of a good name for the second one (unfortunately, Russian "От комполка до комкора. 1923—1939" would have to be translated to something like "From commander of regiment to commander of corps")... Any ideas..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like no other suggestions were offered... So, the names that I managed to think of:
  1. Early life and career
  2. Peacetime service till Khalkhin Gol
  3. Khalkhin Gol to Barbarossa
  4. Eastern front of World War II
  5. Post war service under Stalin
  6. Rise and fall after Stalin
  7. Retirement
Would anyone have any suggestions to improve those names? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I implemented this change ([21]) - maybe thinking of a good name will be easier with the plan being used in the article itself..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Apparently he didn't, as the idea that World War II didn't start until June 1941 was still there two years later.

The period from Khalkhin Gol to Barbarossa was indeed an integral part of World War II (As was the Rape of Nanjing in 1937).Ericl (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Person rokossovsky3.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Person rokossovsky3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The additions by user "Sholokhov"[edit]

I see that user Sholokhov has added a lot of text to this article. The text is not written in very good English, but it is not impossible to understand, thus it's not much of a problem. However, I had a look at one of additions ([22]) and found it has more serious problems with factual accuracy (my correction - [23])... Essentially, it looks like the author tried to harmonise Zhukov's memoirs and later publication of professional historian, when they simply contradict each other... Still, the source that was added (the mentioned publication of professional historian) looks highly useful. I haven't checked all the text (current version - [24]), but it might be that it will also contain some similar mistakes...

In summary, it would be a pity to just revert to a previous version ([25]), but all this text has to be checked for factual mistakes (and, of course, grammatical mistakes)... Given that, I am going to add some relevant cleanup tags... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Tags added ([26]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It would take a hundred years to fix the grammatical mistakes.

Sardaka (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hagiographic perspective of Zhukov?[edit]

This article conveys a hagiographic perspective of Zhukov. Obviously he was a remarkable general and a major figure in WW2, but the text frequently seems naively admiring. I suspect a Russian patriot has edited it selectively. For example, the "Vistula–Oder Offensive" section supposedly describes his generous support to the Poles, but we all know that the real Polish resistance was crushed and suppressed by Soviet Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:46, 22 March 2015‎ (EET)

Yes, it has been edited by a pro-Zhukov editor, as mentioned in the section right above ("The additions by user "Sholokhov""). And, while the tag has been removed (Special:Diff//651645670) by User:Paul Barlow with edit comment "obsolete tag - article changed radically since 2012"), it doesn't look like any of the changes have been substantial (most of them were the copyedits of that biased text).
Unfortunately, I don't know how to correct that. No one took the trouble of actually checking all that material for several years (because that is quite a lot of text and many possible references are conflicting). I guess we could simply reinstate the text (concerning 1941-1945) of an older version (Special:Diff/474517685), taking some revisions from the current version (like Special:Diff/474853598/474877858, showing just how bad the biased text was)... Then, eventually, some text from current version could be taken back (but only after being checked)... Would I get consensus for something like that? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed the tag because IMO stale tags are utterly worthless. If a tag has been there for three years with no action, it will have no effect. In fact it is counter-productive, as its presence provides a kind of substitute for action. The removal of the tag has actually created a response. If I had been able to "fix" the POV myself I would have done my best to do so, but I'm afraid Zhukov is a commander I know next to nothing about. I have no problem with your strategy of reverting to an earlier version, as long as obvious improvements are not swept away. Paul B (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I did write a couple of essays (User:Martynas Patasius/Perfect is the enemy of good, User:Martynas Patasius/Tags are useful) that might be relevant...
But anyway, there has been no objection, thus I am going to make the proposed change. Of course, anyone who thinks I have missed any improvements is free to integrate them. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Done (Special:Diff/653747886/654107958). After that I have already integrated some additional text (Special:Diff/654107958/654109749). I guess some other text can be integrated as well... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The text was reinserted with comment "resintalled sourced material". Yet, apparently, it was not that much sourced, given that afterwards the same user has removed a couple of "citation needed" templates (without adding a source - Special:Diff/661376482/661377324). I'd say putting all that back needs a more detailed explanation (at the very least). Thus I am going to revert that couple of edits (and one unrelated to all this) to encourage giving of that explanation here. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The information has sources, and that is how wikipedia works, you have a source you add it. Just because you do not like what they say does not mean you can delete it all. AB123321AB (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No, "you have a source you add it" is not how Wikipedia works. Especially when you do not have a source for much of it (just look at that text - most of it is clearly unsourced!). While having sources is important, it is not an excuse to leave such a mess, as you have reinstated (Special:Diff/693034007/693261143). Just look - in your revision "In late August 1942 Zhukov was made Deputy Commander-in-Chief and sent to the southwestern front to take charge of the defence of Stalingrad." goes right after "Zhukov was present when German officials signed the Instrument of Surrender] in Berlin, [...]"!
Thus yes, I am going to remove all that. If you want it to stay in the article - clean it up first. And make sure it does not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For example, "On 29 July 1941 Zhukov was removed from his post of Chief of the General Staff. In his memoirs he gives his suggested abandoning of Kiev to avoid an encirclement as a reason for it." fits NPOV (whatever you think about Zhukov, you will hardly find anything disagreeable in those statements), while failing to state that this information comes from Zhukov's memoirs violates that policy (not everyone is certain that this is the real reason). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Remarkably short shrift to Zhukov re: Stalingrad in "Eastern Front" section[edit] (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)