Books of Viktor Suvorov contains a lot of myths

[Xserx]

Really, Suvorov's books have no high value as historical research. There there are a lot of discrepancies, distortions of the facts and incorrectly reproduced citations. Perhaps, his unique merit is that in Russia and in the world the interest to a history WW2 has amplified. But having read his books, it is not necessary to stop and to speak: " I have understood all ". It is necessary to go further and to read the documents and serious researches.
Greeder If you read in Russian, go here: http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/index.html. This is Meltyukhov's book. And in general, here perfect selection of the military literature in Russian.

Sorry my English.

Best.
Xserx/

[timotheus]

Well here's the thing about Suvorov's books - they make you look at WW2 with a different viewpoint, in my view they let you see "the forest from the trees".

To me (and yes I am a Suvorov fan) the Treaty of Rapallo, the Nazi-Soviet military cooperation from 1920's onward, the soviets allowing germans to actually produce weapons systems forbidden them by the Versaille treaty (we are talking here of fighter planes, dive bmobers, submarines even, tanks), the basing of the bulk of the Soviet Fleet at Lipawa (virtually the closest port near the german frontier), all point to Suvorov's thesis that the Soviet Union was always looking for an icebreaker to plunge Europe into a war during which the Soviet Union would attack to "liberate" the continent and grab as much territory to "sovietize" in the process.

I learned a lot from these books, many interesting, earth shattering facts - for example, Martin Borman was a soviet spy.

[Kunikov]

You're confusing 'facts' with 'lies.'

[timotheus]

Oh please.

Please show me which of his quotes that he cites are "lies". Of course Suvorov has a thesis to prove and he uses those quotes from various sources which support it.

You might disagree with his thesis, but nowhere do I find that he lies. Please enlighten me where he actually lies.

[Kunikov]

When he quotes Vasilevsky and Guderian, for starters. Look through where he quotes them and then find the same quotes in their books, good luck. Actually, what are some 'earth shattering' facts that you've learned from his book? You've made the statement, care to support it?

[Art]

To me (and yes I am a Suvorov fan) the Treaty of Rapallo, the Nazi-Soviet military cooperation from 1920's onward, the soviets allowing germans to actually produce weapons systems forbidden them by the Versaille treaty (we are talking here of fighter planes, dive bmobers, submarines even, tanks), the basing of the bulk of the Soviet Fleet at Lipawa

I'm afraid the last two facts (Soviet allowance to produce fighters ans tanks) and the stationing the most part of the Soviet Baltic Fleet in Libava simply didn't take place in reality. By the way in 1941 Soviet Fleet command had plans to transfer forces from Libava farther to the east - to the new naval base in Riga, but didn't have the time to fulfill this plan before the war.

You might disagree with his thesis, but nowhere do I find that he lies. Please enlighten me where he actually lies.

The whole books was written and the whole internet sites were created about the very specific method of the work with sources that Suvorov uses. The example I like the most:

The closer was the date of Soviet invasion in Europe (July 1941) the more candid Pravda was:
"Divide your enemies, satisfy tepmroraly their demands and then defeat them one by one without giving them an opportunity to get united"("Pravda", 4th March 1941)

V.Suvorov "Icebreaker", chapter 5.
The original quotation (found in the newpaper issue in the library):

Loius XI followed skillfully the advice given by Franchesco Sforza:
"Divide your enemies, satisfy tepmroraly their demands and then defeat them one by one without giving them an opportunity to get united"

The newspaper review of the "History of Diplomacy" book.
I leave you to make the conclusion about Suvorov's honesty on your own.

[Kunikov]

Art, what are some of these sites? I actually expected to see a book that would list every single one of Suvorov's lies and false conclusions...then again that might be too much work for any one man/woman ...but I'd be interested to see these sites!

[Art]

Kunikov, try this:
http://www.geocities.com/suvcomments/

[Moltke d. J.]

Hi,
just one question about Martin Bormann being a soviet spy! Was that irony or did I miss something?
Just wondering...

Moltke d. J.

[timotheus]

Art, the quotes in your post look same to me.

I have a whole polish book (communist era) on 1939-1945 baltic warfare (on the sea and coastal areas), and the evacution of liepaja was a well planned, well executed naval operation which nevertheless caused the navu some painful losses. I can get more specific into this.

The whole point of basing the Soviet Baltic Fleet at Liepaja was...?

[Art]

Art, the quotes in your post look same to me.

They look the same, but the context is dufferent. Suvorov tries to create an impression that this quotation expressed the opinion of "Pravda" authors (or taking more generally the opinion of Soviet leaders). However, if to look at the phrase inside the context, it turns out to be just the quotation of the words of Franchesco Sforza who lived in XV century, which is given without appoval ar dissaproval. So this quotation cannot say anything about the Soviet policy of the moment. I have allready said that Suvorov looks like a parody to the worst part of Soviet official historyography, but I must admit that to some credit of the latter, that it didn't use such tricks.

The whole point of basing the Soviet Baltic Fleet at Liepaja was...?

Libava had the port with facilities neaded , it was close to the German communication on the Baltic Sea, and at last but not at least it was the only port in the Soviet part of Baltic, which enabled the full-year usage, while all the others were covered with ice in winter period.
By the way, Libava was realy intended to be the main base of Baltic fleet...in Russian Empire's times, despite some concerns of being too close to the Russian-German border. However, after Russo-Japanese war, such plans were abandonded.

[Kunikov]

Art, the quotes in your post look same to me.

It isn't the quote, it's the context. But you ignoring the context speaks volumes.

[bulgarianlawyer]

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

Every topic is worthy of discussion if there’s but one man interested in it.

I’ve read Suvorov’s books and I’ve read Anti-suvorov. I’m not convinced by the latter. The author has picked up with bias some details and even so his thesis is sometimes questionable. But this is not the point. The point is that Germany was military insignificant at the time compared to the Soviet union and still managed to reach Moscow.

I was a tankman in the army (although serving on T-55, not on T-34) and have to tell you that what I read in Suvorov’s books makes sense to me. On the details here (large tracks, diesel engine and so on) Anti-Suvorov says nothing sensible. I’m prepared to discuss the details here one by one. The very fact that so much was invested in tanks the author of Anti-suvorov explains with the large Soviet territory. If tanks are the cheapest way to build one’s defence, why then these were not much used at the time USSR had to defend its territory against Red China? Of course tanks could be used in defence but economically this makes no sense. The same way we could defend a harbor using battleships but it’ll be cheaper simply to put a fort there.

[Kunikov]

Every topic is worthy of discussion if there’s but one man interested in it.

I’ve read Suvorov’s books and I’ve read Anti-suvorov. I’m not convinced by the latter. The author has picked up with bias some details and even so his thesis is sometimes questionable. But this is not the point. The point is that Germany was military insignificant at the time compared to the Soviet union and still managed to reach Moscow.

I was a tankman in the army (although serving on T-55, not on T-34) and have to tell you that what I read in Suvorov’s books makes sense to me. On the details here (large tracks, diesel engine and so on) Anti-Suvorov says nothing sensible. I’m prepared to discuss the details here one by one. The very fact that so much was invested in tanks the author of Anti-suvorov explains with the large Soviet territory. If tanks are the cheapest way to build one’s defence, why then these were not much used at the time USSR had to defend its territory against Red China? Of course tanks could be used in defence but economically this makes no sense. The same way we could defend a harbor using battleships but it’ll be cheaper simply to put a fort there.

Would you like to have a discussion about the earth being flat?
The 'point' is that you'd like to discount anti-Suvorov with nothing more than 'even so his thesis is sometimes questionable', yet, where is your proof of this?
Lastly, Soviet defensive 'doctrine' included counter-attacks on a large scale wherever the enemy attacked. That means large numbers of tanks, especially considering the size of the USSR and the multiple threats it faced along its borders.
If you're 'prepared to discuss the details here one by one' then do so without wasting our time.

[bulgarianlawyer]

it turns out to be just the quotation of the words of Franchesco Sforza who lived in XV century, which is given without appoval ar dissaproval. So this quotation cannot say anything about the Soviet policy of the moment.

Oh, yes it can! The fact that it's quoted at this historical moment can tell us something. Pravda is not a book of history, it’s a mouthpiece of the Soviet leadership.