Aleksandr Vasilevsky - Personality and Opinions

Personality and Opinions

Vasilevsky was regarded by his peers as a kind and soft military commander. General Sergei Shtemenko, a member of the General Staff during the war, described Vasilevsky as a brilliant, yet modest officer with outstanding experience in staff work. Shtemenko pointed out Vasilevsky's prodigious talent for strategic and operational planning. Vasilevsky also showed his respect for subordinates and demonstrated an acute sense of diplomacy and politeness, which Stalin appreciated. As a result, Vasilevsky enjoyed almost unlimited trust from Stalin. Several years before the war, Zhukov described Vasilevsky as "a man who knew his job as he spent a long time commanding a regiment and who earned great respect from everybody." During the war, Zhukov described Vasilevsky as an able commander, enjoying exceptional trust from Stalin, and able to persuade him even during heated discussions. Vasilevsky never mentioned his awards (including the two orders of Victory) in his memoirs, attesting to his modesty.

Vasilevsky's actions and personality were sometimes the object of dispute, while less controversial than those of Zhukov. In particular, Nikita Khrushchev defined Vasilevsky in his memoirs as a passive commander completely under the control of Stalin, and blamed him for the Kharkov failure in Spring 1942. Among Vasilevsky's strongest critics was Rokossovsky, who criticized Vasilevsky's decisions during the Stalingrad counteroffensive, especially his refusal to commit the 2nd Army to the annihilation of the encircled German divisions, and for general interference with his own work. Rokossovsky even wrote in his memoirs: "I do not even understand what role could Zhukov and Vasilevsky play on Stalingrad front." In fairness to Vasilevsky it needs noting that he only diverted the 2nd army from the assault on the Stalingrad pocket to commit it against a dangerous German counter-attack from Kotelnikovo, designed to deblockade the pocket, which was enjoying great numerical superiority. Vasilevsky, it seems, was dismayed by Rokossovsky's opposition to the transfer.

On the other hand, the writer Victor Suvorov held up Vasilevsky over Zhukov. According to him, Vasilevsky was the only officer responsible for the successful planning and execution of the Soviet counteroffensive at Stalingrad, and Zhukov played no role whatsoever in it. He claimed that Vasilevsky was the best Soviet military commander and that Soviet victory was mainly due to his actions as the Chief of Staff. According to Suvorov, Zhukov and the Soviet propaganda machine tried, after the war, to reduce the role of the General Staff (and thus Vasilevsky's importance) and to increase the role of the Party and Zhukov.

A post-1991 view on Vasilevsky was elaborated by Mezhiritzky in his book, Reading Marshal Zhukov. Mezhiritzky points out Vasilevsky's timidity and his inability to defend his opinions before Stalin. Reportedly, Vasilevsky was appointed to such high military positions because he was easy to manage. However, Mezhiritzky recognizes Vasilevsky's intelligence and assumes that Vasilevsky was indeed the main author of the Stalingrad counteroffensive. He also points out that Vasilevsky and Zhukov probably deliberately under-reported the estimated strength of the 6th Army to gain Stalin's approval for that risky operation.