6 ms·

Some background: This was written by a defected Soviet military intelligence officer Victor Suvorov: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Suvorov http://en.wikip

by DCoder 16y ago

Some background: This was written by a defected Soviet military intelligence officer Victor Suvorov: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Suvorov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Suvorov . Suvorov wrote a lot of books exploring WWII and demonstrating large amounts of evidence for his "Icebreaker" theory, claiming that Stalin intentionally led Hitler to power, planning to occupy Europe after Nazis and the Western countries were both weary and weakened. The theory has a lot of vocal opponents, but Suvorov never misses a chance to point out that most of them are (paid by) Soviet political/military figures, who are obviously biased and would never admit such a plan. It's a shame that these books are not all translated to English. He also wrote two memoir books, (Tales of a) "Liberator", describing his service in the Soviet regular forces, and "Aquarium", covering the period after he got noticed by and accepted into the intelligence forces. The first one contains some rather fascinating stories of everyday Soviet life and dogma, well worth a read if you can find it. The second one is also good, even though it lacks those everyday stories. Summa summarum, the book OP linked to is an interesting view into the old Soviet thinking. Might be an eye opener for those who believe the Soviets were anywhere near as humane as the Western countries.

pvg 16y ago
Suvorov never misses a chance to point out that most of them are (paid by) Soviet political/military figures There's plenty of criticism of his theories from Western historians as well. Most of his major works are available in English: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Viktor%20Suvorov http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&... He's certainly a colourful and interesting writer and personality; fun to read while keeping things like grains of salt and critical faculties handy.
lionhearted 16y ago
"Operation Barbarossa Saved the World" is one of the strangest and most interesting articles I've read about WWII. I don't buy the whole theory, per se, but it's methodical in listing German and Russian armaments, soldiers, aircraft, and positioning. It draws heavily from Suvorov and argues that the the Nazi pre-emptive invasion of the Soviet Union saved all of Western Europe from Soviet conquest. The basic premise is that Stalin was geared up for a very fast sweep through German territory and following through immediately into Western Europe, but all plans had been made with first strike in mind. It was all first strike aircraft, shock troops, paratroopers, and offensive battleplans without defense or contingency. By violating the Molotov-Ribbontrop Pact first, Germany overran the forward positions of the Soviets quickly, destroying their first strike capability, many aircrafts, logistical details, depots, fuel supplies, and other things which the Soviets weren't prepared for. The author argues that if Germany didn't do that, Russia might've conquered all of Europe, and with the combined might of a Soviet Europe, conquered the world. Interesting idea. I'm not sure I buy it, but it was a fascinating article.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Oddly, the conventional argument--that the Soviets destroyed the bulk of the German army and hence saved Europe from German domination--shares with this theory the odd consequence that liberal democracy in the West was saved from brutal, absolute dictatorship by another brutal, absolute dictatorship.
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    > Oddly, the conventional argument--that the Soviets destroyed the bulk of the German army and hence saved Europe from German domination--shares with this theory the odd consequence that liberal democracy in the West was saved from brutal, absolute dictatorship by another brutal, absolute dictatorship. If you're interested in this sort of thing, definitely look up "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace," or at the very least go read a summary. Also fascinating stuff. Basically, PWFPP's argument is that Nazi Germany would've been very weak and able to overthrow easily by resisting the Nazi conquest of Czechoslovakia - the Czech army was a decent fighting force, and with allied support could've dismantled Nazi Germany right there. France and England do nothing there, but then declare war on Germany after Germany and the Soviet Union sign a peace treaty and jointly invade and divide Poland, and then inexplicably France and England don't attack. That was the stupidest possible way to declare war. You could've backed the Czechs, but declaring war without an invasion while giving Hitler nine months to plan and let him have first strike/blitzkrieg against France? Totally stupid. The Western front of WWII was gravely mismanaged until Winston Churchill took over in England. Like, ridiculously so. They had quite a few opportunities to smash Hitler before he became a problem. When they finally did declare war, they just kind of skirmished a little while letting him build and prepare more, and letting him determine the time and place of battle (they overran the totally ineffective Maginot Line in one spot, spread quickly, and conquered France in three days). Anyway, I do buy that theory. Germany wasn't so strong when they invaded Czech, and the Czechs are strong, tough, proud people. Declare war there and WWII basically doesn't happen. As an added bonus, the Soviet Union couldn't have absorbed Poland, East Germany, and the Baltics as a result. Man oh man WWII was grossly mismanaged in the start of it...
    - 16y ago
sedachv 16y ago
He's also a compulsive liar, attention-seeker and conspiracy nut (you can kind of tell already because "Suvorov never misses a chance to point out that most of them are (paid by) Soviet political/military figures"). Half the facts in that book are rumors he overheard from colleagues or things he made up based on seeing something he didn't understand (the "backwards-print shoe" is pretty hilarious, for example). Try tracking down any of the sources he bothers to cite and see how he misinterprets them.
VladRussian 16y ago
>The theory has a lot of vocal opponents, but Suvorov never misses a chance to point out that most of them are (paid by) Soviet political/military figures, who are obviously biased and would never admit such a plan. Highly recommend "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", the work which is almost academic in quality, if not in shape : http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/0671728687 http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/06717...

by DCoder 16y ago

pvg 16y ago

Suvorov never misses a chance to point out that most of them are (paid by) Soviet political/military figures There's plenty of criticism of his theories from Western historians as well. Most of his major works are available in English: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Viktor%20Suvorov http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&... He's certainly a colourful and interesting writer and personality; fun to read while keeping things like grains of salt and critical faculties handy.

lionhearted 16y ago

"Operation Barbarossa Saved the World" is one of the strangest and most interesting articles I've read about WWII. I don't buy the whole theory, per se, but it's methodical in listing German and Russian armaments, soldiers, aircraft, and positioning. It draws heavily from Suvorov and argues that the the Nazi pre-emptive invasion of the Soviet Union saved all of Western Europe from Soviet conquest. The basic premise is that Stalin was geared up for a very fast sweep through German territory and following through immediately into Western Europe, but all plans had been made with first strike in mind. It was all first strike aircraft, shock troops, paratroopers, and offensive battleplans without defense or contingency. By violating the Molotov-Ribbontrop Pact first, Germany overran the forward positions of the Soviets quickly, destroying their first strike capability, many aircrafts, logistical details, depots, fuel supplies, and other things which the Soviets weren't prepared for. The author argues that if Germany didn't do that, Russia might've conquered all of Europe, and with the combined might of a Soviet Europe, conquered the world. Interesting idea. I'm not sure I buy it, but it was a fascinating article.

philwelch 16y ago
Oddly, the conventional argument--that the Soviets destroyed the bulk of the German army and hence saved Europe from German domination--shares with this theory the odd consequence that liberal democracy in the West was saved from brutal, absolute dictatorship by another brutal, absolute dictatorship.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > Oddly, the conventional argument--that the Soviets destroyed the bulk of the German army and hence saved Europe from German domination--shares with this theory the odd consequence that liberal democracy in the West was saved from brutal, absolute dictatorship by another brutal, absolute dictatorship. If you're interested in this sort of thing, definitely look up "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace," or at the very least go read a summary. Also fascinating stuff. Basically, PWFPP's argument is that Nazi Germany would've been very weak and able to overthrow easily by resisting the Nazi conquest of Czechoslovakia - the Czech army was a decent fighting force, and with allied support could've dismantled Nazi Germany right there. France and England do nothing there, but then declare war on Germany after Germany and the Soviet Union sign a peace treaty and jointly invade and divide Poland, and then inexplicably France and England don't attack. That was the stupidest possible way to declare war. You could've backed the Czechs, but declaring war without an invasion while giving Hitler nine months to plan and let him have first strike/blitzkrieg against France? Totally stupid. The Western front of WWII was gravely mismanaged until Winston Churchill took over in England. Like, ridiculously so. They had quite a few opportunities to smash Hitler before he became a problem. When they finally did declare war, they just kind of skirmished a little while letting him build and prepare more, and letting him determine the time and place of battle (they overran the totally ineffective Maginot Line in one spot, spread quickly, and conquered France in three days). Anyway, I do buy that theory. Germany wasn't so strong when they invaded Czech, and the Czechs are strong, tough, proud people. Declare war there and WWII basically doesn't happen. As an added bonus, the Soviet Union couldn't have absorbed Poland, East Germany, and the Baltics as a result. Man oh man WWII was grossly mismanaged in the start of it...
  - 16y ago

sedachv 16y ago

He's also a compulsive liar, attention-seeker and conspiracy nut (you can kind of tell already because "Suvorov never misses a chance to point out that most of them are (paid by) Soviet political/military figures"). Half the facts in that book are rumors he overheard from colleagues or things he made up based on seeing something he didn't understand (the "backwards-print shoe" is pretty hilarious, for example). Try tracking down any of the sources he bothers to cite and see how he misinterprets them.

VladRussian 16y ago

>The theory has a lot of vocal opponents, but Suvorov never misses a chance to point out that most of them are (paid by) Soviet political/military figures, who are obviously biased and would never admit such a plan. Highly recommend "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", the work which is almost academic in quality, if not in shape : http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/0671728687 http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/06717...