Books of Viktor Suvorov contains a lot of myths

[Rodan Lewarx]

[Split from Recommended reading on the Soviet forces]

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.

Regards

[Dmitry]

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, please post in the "Recommended reading on the Soviet forces" thread in the proper form. You are free to repost there about Isaev's books though. Please write the title of a book and its description. Since your post is polemical I have split it off from the thread.


BTW reviews of Aleksey Isaev books - Current historiography in the former USSR

[Rodan Lewarx]

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.

Regards

[Alex Yeliseenko]

I think Suvorov is not worthy of discussion. For this purpose there are forums of science fiction and a fantasy.

[Dmitry]

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.

You can start the new thread on this particular book or author and post the link to this discussion in the "Recommended reading" thread. Sorry I forgot to make such link. Done already.

[AMVAS]

I think Suvorov is not worthy discussions. For this purpose there are forums of science fiction and a fantasy.

I agree with Alex. Discussion with Rezun (aka Suvorov) is wasting time, because any his statement is in the best case disputable and in the worst - blatant lie...
(the worst cases are much more often)

Never use his data about Soviet equipment, 99% they are either lie, or incorrectly employed! He mixes everything! In arms he's total dumb!!!

Leaving this thread with will not to return....


I told everything... My opinion on this adulterator of history can never be changed under any conditions....

Regards,
Alex

[Greeder]

I told everything... My opinion on this adulterator of history can never be changed under any conditions....

Regards,
Alex

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]

So there is no use in discussion with You. Please leave this thread

When Poles comes everybody runs away, because hardly can be found more stubborn persons, than they are

In my opinion he is better expert than any 'official' Russian historical.

Seems you mixes Russian with Soviet...

But even if to take Rezun/Suvorov's skills in armament and compare it with official soviet historians' skills, Suvorov is in deep down....

It's because he don't have any interest in spreading lies as they have.
They are getting salaries for this.

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".

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

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'.

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...

Regards,
Alex

[Greeder]

When Poles comes everybody runs away, because hardly can be found more stubborn persons, than they are

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".

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?

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

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?

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...

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?

[Alex Yeliseenko]

Hi Greeder!

You read on Russian? There Is a huge weight of books of the Russian authors telling about 1941. Suvorov now is considered marginal the writer of science fiction. What for it to read, if the information can be received from special editions. It " the Frontline illustration ", Military Chronicle, hundreds books of the Russian, German, American, British and Polish authors. Any literature is accessible. Certainly, in history there were " white spots ". Among them - little-known Soviet victories - on Northern Caucasus, the Far North, etc. it seems to Me, that people in Poland should receive information not from Suvorovs, and from those who writes books and clauses on the basis of contemporary records. In the Russian archives work both Finns, and Germans, and Americans (D.Glantz).

regards.

[Art]

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.

Khm, just for reference, with what official russian historical sources published in last 10 years have you aquainted?
If to speak generally any flaws in official Soviet/Russian historiography don't make Suvorov better than he actually is. And I don't think that it's correct to oppose these two trends. In fact Suvorov should be regarded as parody to the Soviet Agitprop. He accumulated its worst features but simply reversed the general idea.

[AMVAS]

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.

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.

Making his conclusions Rezun makes so many mistakes that one needs to write a whole book (or better several books) to disprove all his stupid assertions

And Kremlin historicans has money and and reputation only from their work, aren't they?

Who are they?
I can't find any books written by Kremlin historians here...

Just now exists at least three kinds of publications here.
i) serious researchers (too rare case. One book need several years to be written)
ii) quick researchers (to collect as many materials as they can and published as many books, as they can do)
iii) smattering writers. (Those collects any sources, rumors, guesses and makes loud conclusions. Just like Rezun do, but making absolute different conclusions)
iv) Mass-media production. It's a giant mess of different materials collected from i,ii,iii resources mixed with old Soviet myths and publications.

Those are main typs of publications here.
I don't take publications like encyclopedias and textbooks for schools. They never were considered to be serious sources...

So, have You access to second one? Could You give me some numbers and show me where Suvorov is wrong?

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.

Anyway, Suvorov polemics with 'mass history'. Who cares what 'ruffians' are thinking?

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...

Regards,
Alex

[Art]

And who is the real winner of WW II. Not USA with some USSR help, but USSR with some Western countries help.

By the way one of his books is entitled "The last republic. Why did USSR loose world War II?"

[Greeder]

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.

Yeap, that's what Soviets says since 1941... I don't really trust them

Who are they?
I can't find any books written by Kremlin historians here...

It " the Frontline illustration ", Military Chronicle, hundreds books of the Russian, German, American, British and Polish authors.

Let's make it clear. Every historican who published anything before 1989 from East Germany to North Korea was Kremlin historican. And after 1989 they didn't confess that they lied, it wouldn't be good for their reputation, so they still lie, pretending it was always true.
Now every historican who wants to write about WWII in USSR has to dig trought the stacks of garbages.
Western historican, especially Germans just loves Soviets version. Ugly, dirty, stupid Russians with tanks and planes. Leading by small coward, either not very smart, Stalin. Disaster warranted. It was miracle that they didn't lost the war. Let's name this miracle - Western help.
And please leave historican subject for a moment. Let's talk about Mr. Rezun who oficcialy is a soldier from his education.

I don't take publications like encyclopedias and textbooks for schools. They never were considered to be serious sources...

True, but everybody fights to has his version of history in them.

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...
Regards,
Alex

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.

So, thank You very much. Good bye. There is whole forum for You, where everybody is agree with You. I assume You wasted Your valuable time to write above words

Khm, just for reference, with what official russian historical sources published in last 10 years have you aquainted?

You get me like a tiger.
I've aquainted no official Russian historical sources published in last 10 years.
I'm interested in total regims history, that's why I read Rezun's first book. And it absorbed me enough to read more. But still USSR history don't absorb me so much to search for sources You meant. I'm using public libraries, and there is not very much about recent history.
But I have You, I hope
I would love to read Anti-Suvorov, but unfortunatelly it wasn't published in Poland. And it would be great business for Mr. Isaev I can assure You

So now proffesional question:
What scopes RKKA planned for war with Germany in 1941? Please illuminate me. Serious.

[Kunikov]

USSR did not plan for a war against Germany in 1941.