Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Given leaders in the west generally get promoted due to ability rather than political reasons (yes, there are definitely exceptions), I'm thinking the west is probably a little better off than they otherwise could be.
|
Good point, but the Soviets have also been known to produce their fair share of top-shelf field leaders. In WW2, the Soviets had a lot of good field generals (Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovski, Vasilevski)- as good, if not better, than many of the Western Allies' storied leaders.
The West has traditionally been more patient with generals. They tend to get more chances before being sacked. This can be a good thing, because it allows them time to learn form their mistakes and grow. On the other hand, it allows ineffective generals to remain in place for longer, and that's almost always a bad thing.
The Soviets took a different route. Their generals knew that a lack of results could lead to a one-way ticket to the gulag, or a bullet in the back of the head. This tends to motivate, but it also creates leaders who are reckless or extremely averse to risk-taking. Either product can lead to disaster on the battlefield. I reckon that more than a few potentially brilliant Soviet generals never got past their first mistake.
I guess leadership is one of the biggest "intangibles" when it comes to predicting the outcome of a war.
-