This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations, as well as the First and Second World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
Rodan Lewarx wrote:Books of Viktor Suvorov contains a lot of myths and incorrect statements.
Modern russian historian Alexey Isaev said: "Give me any book of Suvorov and I'll find a mistakes on any page". Also Isaev wrote a book "Anti-Suvorov" where he said in details about main Suvorov's incorrect theses. So needless to say books of Suvorov can't be recommended as a serious reading about soviet army and WW2 but as a fiction only.
Rodan Lewarx wrote:Thank you Dmitry for quick reaction.
But I have a quetsion to avoid possible collisions in future. What can I (or other forum members) do if my opinion on one of recommended book differ from opinion of another member? I think the thread
viewtopic.php?t=111839 is not for discussions but on the other hand I think we must avoid dubious sources in the thread. So in such case something words about it may be useful.
Alex Yeliseenko wrote:I think Suvorov is not worthy discussions. For this purpose there are forums of science fiction and a fantasy.
I told everything... My opinion on this adulterator of history can never be changed under any conditions....
So there is no use in discussion with You. Please leave this thread
In my opinion he is better expert than any 'official' Russian historical.
It's because he don't have any interest in spreading lies as they have.
They are getting salaries for this.
I still remember my history lessons in Poland, well there still are official history textbooks with funny numbers about Russian forces in 1941. So no one can persuade me that 'ofiicial' USSR history is 'the real truth'.
AMVAS wrote:When Poles comes everybody runs away, because hardly can be found more stubborn persons, than they are
AMVAS wrote:I read in recent TV-broadcast with Anti-Suvorov (A.Isaev) in discussion about his modern books Rezun said an interest phrase: "Finally I can work without censorship".
AMVAS wrote:His books are well-paid, that's why he can't refusefrom his version.
Until it supplies $$$ he will digg this gold mine wihout hearing any counter-arguments
AMVAS wrote:There existed two official histories in the USSR.
One - for masses with fairy tales about our losses and in many other subject.
And the second official for military men. It was closed enough.
Only now we can get access to many super-interesting books published in 1950s, but in very lmited editions...
Greeder wrote:In my opinion he is better expert than any 'official' Russian historical. It's because he don't have any interest in spreading lies as they have. They are getting salaries for this.
I didn't get Your point. You mean Isaev is working without censorship now? I don't know this guy. Is he Russian and work in Russia?
No, it was phrase of Rezun about himself
I disagree with Your judgement of his motivations. Of course his books are well-paid. But he is well-paid anyway.
In my opinion he just wants to clear that Russians are not idiots, cowards and dolts what official history is suggesting on every step. And who is the real winner of WW II. Not USA with some USSR help, but USSR with some Western countries help.
And Kremlin historicans has money and and reputation only from their work, aren't they?
So, have You access to second one? Could You give me some numbers and show me where Suvorov is wrong?
Anyway, Suvorov polemics with 'mass history'. Who cares what 'ruffians' are thinking?
Greeder wrote:And who is the real winner of WW II. Not USA with some USSR help, but USSR with some Western countries help.
AMVAS wrote:No, the main aim of Rezun is to prove that it was the USSR who planned to attack Germany.
It's a subject for disputes in what degree the Red Army was prepared for the war prior to German invasion. But it's stupid to claim that RKKA was ready to attack anybody in 1941. Knowning its state and disposition I can't agree with such a statement.
Who are they?
I can't find any books written by Kremlin historians here...
Alex Yeliseenko wrote:It " the Frontline illustration ", Military Chronicle, hundreds books of the Russian, German, American, British and Polish authors.
I don't take publications like encyclopedias and textbooks for schools. They never were considered to be serious sources...
To some degree Rezun was useful. Arguing with him many new documens were brought into historiography, which were not too much famous earlier...
However majority of them disporrves his statements...
As for his technical skills, he's 100% dumb... It's obvious for anybody, who ever was interested in the history of Soviet weapons... Can't remember more silly statements about Soviet arms than Rezun's...
Yes, I have quite a large collection of books of the second type.
But I'm not going to start any proof/disproof game here.
It's wasting time for me. I have many other things to do.
Art wrote:Khm, just for reference, with what official russian historical sources published in last 10 years have you aquainted?
Users browsing this forum: antfreire and 5 guests