
Marshal Zhukov's Pocket Knife - pepys
https://blogs.harvard.edu/houghton/the-castane-collection-series-three-marshal-zhukovs-pocket-knife/
======
dimitar
Zhukov is actually very controversial nowadays. A lot of the early historians
accepted his autobiography as a the main source pretty uncritically.

There is another historical view of Zhukov:

\- He wasn't the military genius he portrayed himself to be and actually stole
the credit for the achievements of other officers. For example he supposedly
saved Stalingrad yet was nowhere near it, he came to Halkin Gol when the
battle was beginning and didn't credit the staff chief for the excellent
planning and so forth.

\- He was a Stalin yes-man, and in stark contrast to his autobiography, there
is no proof he ever challenged him on any decision. This is what Stalin liked,
he needed talented commanders, but also people who will follow his orders to
the letter.

\- His handling of the Red Army in the summer of 1941 while he was Chief of
Staff, was absolutely disastrous. He lost millions of men in ill planned
counter attacks. Stalin kept him around because he followed orders (see
above).

\- Besides being a yes-man, by all unofficial accounts he was a brute and
enjoyed humiliating his soldiers and officers. He was often in fights even
with other marshals.

\- He didn't care much about his soldiers lives, this is why Stalin sent him
to capture Berlin as soon as possible.

\- He wasn't demoted because of paranoia (he probably wouldn't be alive). He
was actually demoted because he allowed his troops to pillage Eastern Germany
for months, and took a huge share of the booty. Not that Stalin was
particularly humanitarian, but this meant that discipline had become
nonexistent.

\- Far from being apolitical and not involved in intrigue, he actually
participated in a coup against Malenkov and Beria. He almost became the leader
of the Soviet Union, however was cleverly outmaneuvered by Khrushchev who put
him in retirement.

\- His mythos began during the time of Brezhnev, when he needed to rewrite the
history of WWII to suit his ends. His autobiography was certainly not written
by him, as are its subsequent 15 editions which hilariously contradict each
other often. His daughter supposedly finds forgotten pages that just happen to
complement the evolving views of Kremlin for over 40 years.

~~~
Ididntdothis
I never understood why there is this tendency to make military leaders into
heroes. They are not better and not worse than leaders in any other area. The
top leaders most likely are just very good politicians.

If we want heroes then it should be the poor guys who have to go to battle for
no payoff and often loss of life or limb.

~~~
CapricornNoble
>>>I never understood why there is this tendency to make military leaders into
heroes. They are not better and not worse than leaders in any other area. The
top leaders most likely are just very good politicians.

Historically, casualties in war were far higher than they've been lately, so
successful military leaders _USUALLY_ were lauded for their ability to not
bring home friendly troops in bodybags repeatedly. Now, I'm not even sure
we've seen them accomplish that. With a few exceptions they are mostly
energetic, charismatic, yes-men who deliver mediocre results.[1]

Having worked in a 3-star headquarters....flag officers are definitely cut
from a different cloth, personality-wise, even compared to many of the
Colonels I've worked for directly under them.

>>>If we want heroes then it should be the poor guys who have to go to battle
for no payoff and often loss of life or limb.

It's not like we ignore them, almost all medals for valor are awarded to
junior ranks (enlisted guys and a few junior officers). As a rough estimate,
look at the living Medal of Honor recipients from Iraq & Afghanistan[2]. The
only exception in recent memory is maybe the field-grade Marine officer who
organized the defense of Camp Bastion[3], and he was given a much lower medal
(still, a Silver Star is very impressive).

[1][https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-
failure/309148/)
[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_Medal_of_Honor_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_Medal_of_Honor_recipients#War_in_Afghanistan)
[3][https://www.stripes.com/news/marine-awarded-silver-star-
for-...](https://www.stripes.com/news/marine-awarded-silver-star-for-response-
to-camp-bastion-assault-1.257138)

------
slim
> As we know, there was no invasion of the Japanese home islands—not by the
> Soviets, nor the Americans, nor the British. Fearing massive loss of life
> both among Allied forces and the Japanese civilian population, President
> Truman ordered nuclear bombs dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki. These bombings quickly brought the war to a close.

Why do American scholars have to justify the bombings each time? "President
Truman ordered nuclear bombs dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
would have been sufficient. It feels like newspeak in 1984.

~~~
gwbas1c
Well hindsight is 20-20, and anyone commenting on the bombs has the luxury of
decades of historical analysis of the war.

My understanding is that the nuclear bombs were approximately as destructive
as the fire-bombing technique. (Commonly used in the war) If we fire bombed
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just as many lives would be lost but we would never
talk about it.

The difference is that fire bombing required many more planes and many more
bombs, thus increasing American military risk. Enemy civilian casualties would
be similar.

~~~
daniel-cussen
Firebombing would also fail to intimidate the Japanese command. They knew what
firebombing was and were prepared for it. But not for nuclear bombs. Nuclear
ordnance was the only reason the Emperor Hirohito cited for the surrender.

~~~
CapricornNoble
Firebombing would also fail to intimidate the SOVIET command. I've frequently
read postulations that was an additional impetus for dropping the 2nd bomb: to
demonstrate to Stalin that we could mass produce them, lest he try to make any
more aggressive moves in Europe. It was also a convenient way for the Japanese
Emperor to "save face". People also postulate that the overwhelmingly
successful Soviet invasion of Manchuria had the Japanese leadership worried:
the Soviets had a reputation for brutality and a possible Soviet invasion of
the Home Islands would turn out even worse than an American one (for the
Japanese people). It looks much better to say "we threw in the towel due to
America's wonder-weapon" than "we threw in the towel because we were terrified
of Stalin".

------
cm2187
By the way the legend of the picture in the middle of “Four Commanders of the
Allied Forces in Berlin” says that the 4th general is de Gaulle but it is
clearly not. I think it is de Lattre.

~~~
emmelaich
I'm sure you're right; those cheeks are de Lattre and I think de Gaulle always
had a moustache.

Plus the five stars.

------
SiempreViernes
Dissapointing that this text about a historical figure should end with the
trope about the bomb ending the war before anyone invaded, when the historical
consensus is that the best that can be said is that the bomb and the soviet
entering the japanese theatre by invading manchuria had about _equal_
importance.

[http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-
us...](http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-
a-consensus-view/)

------
cm2187
If you have not watched it, the movie The Death of Stalin is great, mostly
historically accurate, though not in the depiction of the characters, and
extremely funny. Zhukov is represented as a hilarious bully who intimidates
the whole politburo.

~~~
varjag
Later Zhukov was on his track to become a dictator in 1957, flaunting his
personal command over Soviet military on multiple occasions. It took a
combined pushback of (otherwise feuding) Soviet elites to bring him in check.

~~~
cm2187
I am not praising Zhukov himself. The way he spent men to win Stalingrad is
another questionable aspect of the character.

~~~
wtdata
Stalingrad was the decisive turn of fate during WWII, if the allies had lost
it, the Axis would probably take over the all of Europe. Sure, a lot of men
were sacrificed, but this was total war, those sacrifices saved tens of
millions.

We live with this slight propaganda that the USA was the responsible to
liberate Europe, but in fact, USA showed up here at the end of the war when
the Russians had already inflicted a major defeat on the German army, and it
was the sacrifice of Russian men at Stalingrad (together with any material
help the British could afford to spare to that front), that ultimately won the
war for the Allies, not D-day.

~~~
mieseratte
The Allies weren’t exactly sitting on their hands. Just taking the strategy of
picking off North Africa and Southern Europe before hitting Western / Central.

Trying to reduce the war down to any one side is, IMHO, wrong and suspect.

~~~
gumby
They were letting the Soviets do the heavy lifting, contributing more materiel
than manpower until late in the process.

I don’t blame the western allies for the strategy but the soviets don’t get
adequate credit for the privation they suffered.

~~~
kmlx
> soviets don’t get adequate credit for the privation they suffered.

this old trope? the soviets were horrible monsters. they killed jews (many
pogroms). during peacetime they killed at least as many people as the nazis
did.

the great trick that the soviets managed is to make us belief they were on the
right side of history, when in reality they were on the worst side, every
single time.

one of the greatest mistakes of WW2 was the US support of the USSR. they
should have left the two madmen to kill eachother. the world would have been a
much better place. what did we get in return? USSR dominating half of Europe,
murdering, scheming, destroying the social fabric of the continent for half a
century.

~~~
aidenn0
Towards the end of the war there clearly wasn't US support for the USSR; we
were racing them towards Berlin (and lost) and raced them to get Japan to
surrender (won that one). The optics of completely abandoning someone you are
ostensible allied with are poor.

All of that is orthogonal to the fact that over a third of the people who died
in WW2 were Soviets, and many people do not realize it, which is the point the
grandparent comment was making.

------
coffeemug
Brodsky's poem On the Death of Zhukov brilliantly reflects his controversial
life. The english translation isn't very good, but it carries some of the
flavor--
[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230373396_3](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230373396_3)

------
coconut_crab
I didn't know that the Soviet made pocket knives,they look quite similar to
swiss army knives!

This part really struck me hard because my tools are all mint, despite being
bought years ago:

> For me, the knife’s most compelling quality is that it clearly saw hard use,
> most probably by Zhukov himself: some of the blades are stained; a slot that
> once contained a toothpick is empty; and a couple of tools appear to be
> broken off, including what was once a small pair of scissors.

~~~
ivanhoe
First Swiss army knifes were produced in the late 19th century, and the idea
of combined blades and tools existed long before. Folding pocket knives were
in wide use everywhere, so surely Russians manufactured and used them even
before USSR.

------
croh
I only noticed wine opener

~~~
benj111
I noticed the same.

I wonder when the pen knife changed from being a simple folding blade to the
multitooled wonder we have today?

Also does it say something about generals and the military that the two
missing/broken tools are the scissors and tooth pick?

Edit: Apparently they have a longer history than I would have thought

"The Swiss Army Knife was not the first multi-use pocket knife. In 1851 in
"Moby Dick" (chapter 107), Melville references the "Sheffield contrivances,
assuming the exterior - though a little swelled - of a common pocket knife;
but containing, not only blades of various sizes, but also screw-drivers,
cork-screws, tweezers, awls, pens, rulers, nail-filers, countersinkers.""

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army_knife](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army_knife)

~~~
jhellan
How about this one from ancient Rome?

[https://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/collections/greeceandrome/7...](https://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/collections/greeceandrome/70534)

~~~
aries1980
The tulip motives on the knife makes me wonder if it was actually Roman and
not from the Middle East.

~~~
Steve44
The Roman Empire covered a huge area, including some of the Middle East and
North Africa so it’s highly likely that people, objects, and ideas all moved
around. They could well have taken inspiration from something seen at one of
the outposts.

------
html5web
I used to have one of these knives :)

------
walkingolof
"an American general at the time expressed the desire that Germans would
henceforth be a “nation of shepherds”, incapable of playing a major part in
world affairs—yet shortly after the war’s end, it was well on its way to
accomplishing the Wirtschaftswunder, the economic miracle that it maintains to
this day. Japan arose the ashes in a similar fashion. And the United
States…the country that for the entire postwar period served as a source of
aspiration for people the world over, a model of domestic stability and good
governance, and a guarantor of its allies’ military security, is now riven by
toxic political discord and stands at the brink of social collapse."

~~~
mikorym
I don't agree with that last statement at all. Americans have seen too little
hardship to have an idea what "social collapse" and "toxic political discord"
is.

~~~
mieseratte
Considering my family lived through WWII in the thick of it and later came to
America, and this is not a unique occurrence, to say “Americans don’t know” is
just wrong.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
I think by "Americans" he means "the upper middle class Nth (N>=4 or so)
generation Americans that dominate political discourse the 364 days of the
year that aren't election day"

------
inflatableDodo
> _As we know, there was no invasion of the Japanese home islands—not by the
> Soviets, nor the Americans, nor the British. Fearing massive loss of life
> both among Allied forces and the Japanese civilian population, President
> Truman ordered nuclear bombs dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki. These bombings quickly brought the war to a close._

According to other narratives by historians, the main cause of the Japanese
surrender was the Russians entering the Pacific war.

[https://www.history.co.uk/shows/x-company/articles/why-
did-j...](https://www.history.co.uk/shows/x-company/articles/why-did-japan-
really-surrender-in-ww2)

[https://apjjf.org/-tsuyoshi-
hasegawa/2501/article.html](https://apjjf.org/-tsuyoshi-
hasegawa/2501/article.html)

Is worth remembering that not everyone buys into the idea that nukes are
ultimate weapons that definitively ended the second world war. There are
actually a variety of views on the subject, which from a game theory
perspective creates dangerous instabilities within the doctrine of Mutually
Assured Destruction.

~~~
trhway
>>These bombings quickly brought the war to a close.

>According to other narratives by historians, the main cause of the Japanese
surrender was the Russians entering the Pacific war.

Both - USSR entering the war and the nuclear bombs caused the Japanese
surrender. It would have happened soon even without the bombs anyway. The main
role the bombs played is to avoid USSR actually invading Japan territory.
Ultimately that saved Japan from the Korea and Germany fate.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War)

"The invasion of the second largest Japanese island of Hokkaido, originally
planned by the Soviets to be part of the territory taken,[18] was held off due
to apprehension of the US' new position as an atomic power."

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>"The invasion of the second largest Japanese island of Hokkaido, originally
planned by the Soviets to be part of the territory taken,[18] was held off due
to apprehension of the US' new position as an atomic power."

I checked the citations for that part of the article and they do not back up
that claim. They are talking about what territory the USSR will get and which
surrendering troops will become Soviet POWs. There is no discussion of "well,
we better hold off because the 'mericans are just gonna glass 'em all for us".

Furthermore, the Americans had a shovel ready invasion plan with a start date
in November. The soviets didn't have a real plan yet. It's not like they
called off an invasion because we started lobbing nukes.

Anyone who says that showing the USSR what we were capable of was more than
just a side benefit understand the Pacific campaign. If we didn't nuke them we
were going to firebomb them. It was basically common knowledge that these
people were dedicated enough to follow their cause to the death. What was
learned on Iwo Jima and confirmed on Okinawa was that they were going to make
us fight for every inch. In lieu of that it's hard to justify not using every
available means to kill them dead enough that they surrender without invasion
or soften them up prior to invasion. Imagine the scandal has Truman just
decided "this whole atom bomb thing is barbaric, we're going to invade them
and/or let the soviets burn half a million lives invading them".

~~~
cryptonector
Before the bombs were dropped the Japanese had already intimated that they
were willing to surrender with one condition: that the emperor would stay
emperor. The U.S. wanted an unconditional surrender, but in the end accepted a
conditional surrender while calling it unconditional in public. Stalin's
entrance in the war sharpened minds on both the Japanese and American side, as
neither wanted Stalin involved anymore.

It's hard to prove exactly, but Stalin's entrance into the war is almost
certainly the precipitator for it's quick end without an invasion. For the
Japanese, partial occupation by Red Army troops was a much worse prospect than
occupation by American troops. For the U.S., giving Stalin a say in Japan was
utterly unnecessary and very much undesirable at that point (as opposed to
much earlier in the war). The A-bombs wouldn't have moved the Japanese
military or emperor very much: they weren't more devastating that fire bombing
already had been, and there weren't any notable cities left to devastate in
Japan.

~~~
inflatableDodo
I may not have stated this well enough, but my original interest was sparked
more by the fact that there is a variation of beliefs in the story, than
neccesarily what the original motivations truly were in history, as I was
wondering about the resulting implications in strategic game theory. MAD only
works if all sides have the same standard for destruction in their beliefs and
probability measure for the word assured. The US political culture has a
general view that nukes end a war, if the political culture in other countries
think that it is possible to develop strategies where you can get nuked and
still continue with the war, then that is very important thing to be aware of.

