Operation Barbarossa and Icebreaker

[Andreas]

Stahit

If you have any evidence whatsoever that western governments, or anyone else, are suppressing the publication or re-publication of Suvorov's books, show it. If you don't, stop talking about conspiracies. It is nonsensical babble otherwise, and in violation of forum rules. You make a claim, you back it up.

Thank you.

Andreas

[Anglian]

Thus far all we have are promises of you going to do something or other, yet we are still waiting. Just because his sensationalist garbage is popular among those who 'hate' their former country's history does not make him right. There is no conspiracy against his work (s), they aren't being published because they are unfounded and unsourced. They are triades into his imagination which come out as brain farts when faced with the realities of the situation he is so desperately trying to make fit with his ideas.

No offence Kunikov, but do you really believe that?

[Kunikov]

Thus far all we have are promises of you going to do something or other, yet we are still waiting. Just because his sensationalist garbage is popular among those who 'hate' their former country's history does not make him right. There is no conspiracy against his work (s), they aren't being published because they are unfounded and unsourced. They are triades into his imagination which come out as brain farts when faced with the realities of the situation he is so desperately trying to make fit with his ideas.

No offence Kunikov, but do you really believe that?

What in my post makes you think I don't?

[Andreas]

Anglian

What I said to Stahit applies to you as well. If you have evidence for the book being suppressed, show it. Otherwise, refrain from idle speculating.

Thank you.

Andreas

[Anglian]

Anglian

What I said to Stahit applies to you as well. If you have evidence for the book being suppressed, show it. Otherwise, refrain from idle speculating.

Thank you.

Andreas

I haven't any evidence. The way things are done in Britain is that you never can find out. Like that Katyn monument that the Polish expatriate community wanted to erect. It just didn't happen while the date of the atrocity was 1940.
Things are done so quietly that they just don't happen, or just don't appear.
That's the great success of our security services/Old Boy network.

[Andreas]

Anglian

What I said to Stahit applies to you as well. If you have evidence for the book being suppressed, show it. Otherwise, refrain from idle speculating.

Thank you.

Andreas

I haven't any evidence. The way things are done in Britain is that you never can find out. Like that Katyn monument that the Polish expatriate community wanted to erect. It just didn't happen while the date of the atrocity was 1940.
Things are done so quietly that they just don't happen, or just don't appear.
That's the great success of our security services/Old Boy network.

Do you mean this one?

http://www.walkingbritain.co.uk/walks/w ... 801c.shtml

Or this one?

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cg ... 20Memorial

Here is the story:

Information from FCO website

There is no need to answer this, since it would be off-topic. 2 mins of Googling brought out that despite your assertion, a Katyn memorial has been built. Despite your assertion, the background to the government hesitation about the memorial is a matter of the public record, in the open now.

I see no reason to assume your other assertion regarding a conspiracy is any more reliable, even if it can not be disproven as easily. The forum rules are clear. You make a claim, you back it up. If you can not do so, invoking old boy networks is not good enough.

Thank you.

Andreas

[Andreas]

A post by Anglian that ignored my prior warning has been removed in line with that warning and the forum guidelines.

E. Questions, Claims and Proof

2. Claims and Proof

The fifth rule of the forum is: "When quoting from a book or site, please provide info on the source (and a link if it is a website)."

If a poster raises a question about the events, other posters may answer the question with evidence. If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Also, undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

This requirement applies to each specific claim. In the past, some posters have attempted to evade the proof requirement by resort to the following tactics, none of which are acceptable here:

A general reference to a website, or a book without page references; citations or links to racist websites; generalized citations to book reviews; and citations to unsourced articles.

Noncomplying posts are subject to deletion after warning.

3. Opinions

Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources do not promote the purposes of the forum. Consequently, such posts are subject to deletion after a warning to the poster.

The same reasoning applies to opinion threads.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=6&start=0

Thank you.

Andreas

[paulmacg]

Sensationalist books usually are very profitable (as Icebreaker was in Poland, Russia or Germany) so the natural question arises why it wasn't multi edition bestseller in America or Britain then? It was because Anglosaxon media virtually ignored it from the start despite its huge bestselling potential, differently from their continental counterparts. It's another strange thing, but there are few more also. All Western publishers were translating Suvorov with ease, all of his books he has written before Icebreaker are available in English but they suddenly stopped doing it after release of his most famous book.

I'm not sure why that would be. I do know that, generally speaking, in North America there is a lack of interest in the Eastern Front. Most people believe we saved the world at D-Day and that North Africa was a key element in the downfall of Nazi Germany. Most historians probably know different, but that doesn't change the fact that bookstores do not carry literature concerning the Russo-German War and even university libraries must make special requests for the material. Between the Cold War, Russian sealed archives, post-war propaganda and the simple fact that our grandfathers and fathers fought in the west and in the Pacific it is obvious to me why this is the simple state of affairs we live in. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

In fact, I am surprised that Icebreaker generated any interest at all in the English speaking countries of the world. It is hard enough to get even educated people to understand or care about the scope and importance of the Russo-German War. Getting them to believe that Stalin was planning an attack on Germany, IMO, is, at present, a virtual impossibility.

The only other explanation I can think of is that Suvorov went too far with Icebreaker and was discredited. That would certainly explain why his follow up works have not been appearing in Western literature.

…as opposed to the spectacular performance of Wehrmacht in winter conditions? The reason of initial failure in Finland was largely caused by underestimation of an enemy.

No. The best comparison to make in the case of the Winter War would be with the Finnish forces.

I cannot agree with your appraisal of the war. I am of the opinion the Red Army lost because of poor tactics, poor command and control, poor logisitics, poor infantry firepower and, in general, a poor understanding of its own capabilities. They used the same approach in everything they did until 1945 (the Winter War, Khalkin-Gol, Poland and all of the counterattacks in 1941, 1942, most of 1943 and parts of 1944). The approach worked, in every case, but at the cost of horrendous losses.

I have an educational gap about it – can you explain in a few words why Soviet performance was abysmal in Polish campaign?

The same as in Finland. Poor command and control provided by inexperienced and poorly trained officers led to an embarrassing display of ineptitude. The immediate result of which was the disbanding of the mechanized corps due to a shocking inability of said formations to accomplish their objectives against even nonexistant opposition. In other words, to put it bluntly, the Red Army was in such a shameless state of disorganization that, even without an enemy, it still could not do what it was meant to do.

In fact, the mechanized corps were only reformed, or rather, the reformation was only started, after German victories in France.

They won it after all, so I guess you meant the start of it. I cannot agree with you (or Qvist) that terrible start was caused by alleged (I say so because I haven’t read SC myself, this doesn’t mean Glantz necessarily was wrong) terrible shape and it can be used as an evidence of such bad shape. The giant failure largely happened because Red Army was not preparing to defend and it was in the middle of the massive deployment. The main point here is the failure at the start of Barbarossa cannot be used as a key proof of a bad overall shape, IMO. I have a plea – let’s not thoroughly discuss this point at moment, I will keep my promises and prepare full argumentation in 2006.

But his is the best argument. Not touching on Glantz is like ignoring Einstein in a discussion of modern physics.

The Red Army was in a defensive posture when it was attacked in 1941. Worse, it lacked even the hint of the formation it would need to adopt to conduct an attack. There is no argument that can change these facts.

It is not a coincidence that Soviet offensive and defensive tactics during the war, after the initial defeats, began to more and more closely mirror their prewar doctrine. In fact, any study of these tactics will show a remarkable continuity in Soviet military thinking. The Red Army, in 1941, was not preparing for an attack. It did not have its divisions concentrated in key areas or its mobile groups positioned to exploit the gaps the infantry would tear in the German defenses. In fact, it did not even have the reserves available to it for a surprise deployment. Two, I repeat two, of the mechanized corps were at establishment strength, while the rest ranged from almost totally without vehicles to seriously understrength.

In fact, Russian forces were concentrated mainly in the south. The mech corps in the Western Military district were among the most seriously understrength. The reserve army at Minsk had no forces under its control. How could they possibly have rectified this situation, given Soviet rail capacity, in 1941?

The RKKA was in the middle of a massive expansion, but that expansion had barely begun and would not be finished for some time.

What concerns specifically Glantz, his SC in principle cannot be used as a conclusive rebuttal of Suvorov’s thesis that Stalin intended to strike in summer of 1941, to say nothing of pre-1941 situation. This point has been already discussed before and I would like to recommend for you to read entire page 42 (especially Holtrop’s review about SC) of this thread.

And I would like to recommend that you read Stumbling Colossus. Given that you have accused others of not reading Icebreaker before rejecting its ideas it seems strange to me that you are so willing to undermine the importance of SC without having read it yourself (and apparently based on the opinions of others). I assure you that David Glantz' work is directly relevant to this argument.

Cheers

Paul

[Andreas]

Stahit - you said:

This is the first, also the most reasonable and plausible explanation I’ve heard here, but as you said Suvorov is sensationalist unlike Bergstrom, IMO. Sensationalist books usually are very profitable (as Icebreaker was in Poland, Russia or Germany) so the natural question arises why it wasn't multi edition bestseller in America or Britain then? It was because Anglosaxon media virtually ignored it from the start despite its huge bestselling potential, differently from their continental counterparts. It's another strange thing, but there are few more also. All Western publishers were translating Suvorov with ease, all of his books he has written before Icebreaker are available in English but they suddenly stopped doing it after release of his most famous book. None of the sequels, where he further developed the theme and was responding to his critics (Day M, The Last Republic, The Purge, Suicide, and Shadow of The Victory) were printed in AngloSaxon countries; despite they were very popular in Russia, Poland or Germany.
I will give up my conspiracy rants if all this can be explained too.

I don't see anything being proven or disproven by pursuing this particular piece of evidence.

I don’t see too and I didn’t want to imply otherwise, this is the question whether some historical works are being (I’m not quite sure intentionally or functionally ) suppressed or not in the West, in spite of their (in)veracity.

You talk of conspiracies in the context of Suvorov's book not being available, and you raise the question of whether or not books are being suppressed. You have not shown any evidence that books are in fact being suppressed, or that there are any conspiracies.

I take it from your previous post that you are merely raising these as an academic exercise, and that since you do not have any evidence, that you will agree that there is no conspiracy, and that no works are being suppressed? In which case, why raise these questions in the first place?

I would also like to point out that your selective quoting of my previous post made it appear that I said something I did not. I have corrected this using the delete function, removing your post, since my tolerance for this kind of nonsense is precisely zero. In the future, do not use selective quoting to make it appear that another poster, moderator or not, has said something that he did not say.

Thank you.

Andreas

[StaHit]

this is the question whether some historical works are being (I’m not quite sure intentionally or functionally ) suppressed or not in the West, in spite of their (in)veracity.

If someone cannot distinguish between guestion and suposition, that's certainly not my fault.

I will give up my conspiracy rants if all this can be explained too

Now this is my fault I should have posted smile after it. Can you show those my conspiracy rants anywhere? Can be description and facts itself of a situation about Iceabreaker's availability called conspiracy rant? I asked explanation of this particular situation,which seemed very strange to me, that's all.

If you have any evidence whatsoever that western governments, or anyone else, are suppressing the publication or re-publication of Suvorov's books, show it.

Why do I have show something if I didn't claim that "western governments, or anyone else, are suppressing the publication or re-publication of Suvorov's books"?

If a guestions equal claims here, only in this case I accept your notes.

The situation in fact is that his books are not freely available (or are not available at all) in AngloSaxon (I don't know nothing about France though) countries compared with Germany or Eastern Europe. I really don't know what it is - is this just a coincidence, is that (deliberate) supression, is that academic inertia, is that disinterest in Eastern front or history in general? So I tried to get some plausible answers.
I never could imagined at all, for example, that such miracles with Halder's diary are possible when the text suddenly changes in English translation for some unclear reasons. Naturally that some questions, including paranoid ones, arise.

[StaHit]

Thus far all we have are promises of you going to do something or other, yet we are still waiting.

Patience, please. It is easy to tease each other like we're doing know, but it's not that easy and quick to write good post, especially when the subject is so complex and has many angles. My English is awful and majority of my sources are not in English, it takes time to prepare my posts which are based on it. Maybe you could help me and translate some excerpts from Russian?

Just because his sensationalist garbage is popular among those who 'hate' their former country's history does not make him right.

Just recently, A. N. Sakharov, director of the Russian History Institute at RAN, wrote
in Voprosy istorii that it was generally accepted there that Stalin was preparing a preventive
war against Hitler. The sole remaining question, he said, was when?

Looks like the member of Russian Academy of Sciences is a hater of his homeland history too.

The real haters of history are those, IMO, who want to preserve Soviet erzac of history, but not those who are investigating it.

"Man is so constituted that the truth, however painful, is more important in the final analysis than the spurious bliss of living in lies and ignorance." T.S Bushayeva

...they are unfounded and unsourced. They are triades into his imagination which come out as brain farts when faced with the realities of the situation he is so desperately trying to make fit with his ideas

Very authorative opinion, considering the fact you haven't read him at all.

[StaHit]

Most people believe we saved the world at D-Day and that North Africa was a key element in the downfall of Nazi Germany.

Question to Anglian:

Is situation the same in UK?

[Kunikov]

Thus far all we have are promises of you going to do something or other, yet we are still waiting.

Patience, please. It is easy to tease each other like we're doing know, but it's not that easy and quick to write good post, especially when the subject is so complex and has many angles. My English is awful and majority of my sources are not in English, it takes time to prepare my posts which are based on it. Maybe you could help me and translate some excerpts from Russian?

I have my own translations to do, and I'm helping an author with his.

Just recently, A. N. Sakharov, director of the Russian History Institute at RAN, wrote
in Voprosy istorii that it was generally accepted there that Stalin was preparing a preventive
war against Hitler. The sole remaining question, he said, was when?

Looks like the member of Russian Academy of Sciences is a hater of his homeland history too.

Asking when Stalin would attack is totally different from what Suvorov does.

...they are unfounded and unsourced. They are triades into his imagination which come out as brain farts when faced with the realities of the situation he is so desperately trying to make fit with his ideas

Very authorative opinion, considering the fact you haven't read him at all.

I've read parts of that book, and I've read some of his other books. I've also spoken to authors who have disproved his works, one of them even had the 'honor' to have Suvorov call him and 'accuse' him of being a 'student of Goebbles.'

[StaHit]

And I would like to recommend that you read Stumbling Colossus. Given that you have accused others of not reading Icebreaker before rejecting its ideas it seems strange to me that you are so willing to undermine the importance of SC without having read it yourself (and apparently based on the opinions of others). I assure you that David Glantz' work is directly relevant to this argument

It's a pity that you ignored my advice - the fact I haven't read SC is irrelevant, because I can accept Glantz's description of Red Army without any problem, but that in principle cannot do any effect to my position. Qvist, who has read SC and by no means is supporter of Suvorov or my arguments, formulated it very precisely (emphasis is mine) :

I agree that this book cannot be regarded as conclusive proof against Soviet offensive intentions in 1941, though it does demonstrate that the Red Army was in no state to carry it out successfully.

and

The context in which this point was raised was that even if you prove an absence of actual ability, you do not neccessarily prove an absence of an intention to try, hence SC cannot IMO be seen as a conclusive rebuttal of the possibility of such a Soviet intention.

The same as in Finland. Poor command and control provided by inexperienced and poorly trained officers led to an embarrassing display of ineptitude. The immediate result of which was the disbanding of the mechanized corps due to a shocking inability of said formations to accomplish their objectives against even nonexistant opposition. In other words, to put it bluntly, the Red Army was in such a shameless state of disorganization that, even without an enemy, it still could not do what it was meant to do.

Let me ask then: who attacked Finland without any hesitation immediately after Polish campaign? Swedes, perhaps? How does it fit your theory that Soviets couldn't attack because they were "in a shameless state of disorganization"?

I am of the opinion the Red Army lost...

I see that we have very different opinions - I think Red Army defeated Finland ang got huge part of its territory, despite the initial blunders at the end of 1940.

The RKKA was in the middle of a massive expansion, but that expansion had barely begun and would not be finished for some time.

Paul are you serious? Is that your opinion or Glantz's? How it is possible not to separate two entirely different things - expansion and concrete deployment at the Western borders which was supposed to be finished in mid-July?

But his is the best argument.

All the worse for Glantz, if his main intention was rebutal of Suvorov's thesis that Soviets intended to strike in July.

Not touching on Glantz is like ignoring Einstein in a discussion of modern physics.

That's exactly what Glantz did when he ignored political and diplomatical background of the issue, e.g. Timoshenko this, Timoshenko that. Timoshenko was nobody compared to Stalin in SU, if Stalin thought he needed to attack and was sure himself that Red Army is capable to attack , all the timoshenkos in the world could do nothing about it, despite the real situation (reorganisation, unreadiness etc.) of Red Army.

EDIT: I added http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/archives/020210.shtml (my emphasis)

The most brilliant of the survivors of the old school, Marshal Shaposhnikov, was less sanguine. While Stalin and Voroshilov believed that at worst the war might last a few days, Shaposhnikov—who was absent from Moscow when Stalin and Voroshilov took the decision to launch the campaign against Finland—feared it could go on for months, and was rebuked by Stalin for underestimating the strength of the Red Army and exaggerating that of the Finnish Army. Commanders at the Kremlin meeting repeatedly refer to the fact that they had not been aware of the strength of Finland's defences, or of much else about Finland's fighting capacity. Many blamed the culture of secretiveness that had kept this information from those to whom it would have been of most value. With breathtaking hypocrisy, their complaints were echoed by Stalin himself, the architect and chief exponent of that culture. Nor had Soviet commanders been given access to Western journals, from which they could have learnt about the latest thinking on modern warfare. And in the wake of the purges the very idea of foreign travel and visits to study the practices of other armies was properly regarded as the kiss of death.

[StaHit]

I've read parts of that book, and I've read some of his other books

And I have the book in Russian on my PC, haven't read it yet, but I have it.

Am I the only one who sees some contradiction here?