Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Review: The Chief Culprit by Rezun (Viktor Suvorov)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Review: The Chief Culprit by Rezun (Viktor Suvorov)

    I have to say I simply could not finish this tripe. 100 pages in was too much for me to take. My review follows:

    It doesn't surprise me to see all the five star reviews on amazon; ignorance and conspiracy theories usually deliver what readers are inclined to agree with when a factual foundation is missing. Viktor Suvorov, AKA Rezun, is a spy and traitor. Those who want to conceive of him as anything else are free to do so, but both those titles are a part of his history and who he is. The author is a self-proclaimed 'intelligence operative' and not an historian, which should already mean something to those who think this account comes anywhere close to historical discourse. This is also not someone who ever had access to Soviet/Russian archives. He claims to have seen German documents in Podolsk, but claiming so and proving it are two different things. This book is a combination of "ideas" taken out of a dozen or so of Suvorov's other works. There is a reason the majority of his books were never translated, they are worthless. The man is smart, but his grasp of history is fickle, whether he does this on purpose or actually believes in his own lies is a question I cannot answer. And I have to say, overall, this book was painful to read. Not solely because I know of his lies, but mainly because of how he tries to bring things that have nothing in common together. In reading this book I find it interesting that no one noticed how many sides Suvorov caters to. For Germany he provides an acquittal to Barbarossa, Stalin was readying for war, they had a right to defend themselves. He appeases Russians by blaming everything on Stalin, the Soviet Union was strong, the Red Army the greatest, but Stalin forgot who to trust and not to trust. And he appeases Stalinists by describing how smart and ruthless Stalin was, hence his bashing of figures like Mikhail Tukhachevsky and his cheerleading for Stalinist purges.

    This is a book built on fallacies, straw men, twisted facts, omitted context, and baseless theories delivered in the form of a kindergarten lecture. Starting with his introduction, a standard is set that Suvorov adheres to in the rest of his text. On pg. xix the author mentions how the Soviet Union contained two field armies in June of 1939 neither of which were deployed in the "European part of the Soviet Union", for a moment we will give him the benefit of the doubt (since no sources or citations are listed). He also claims that by June 1941 there were twenty-six field armies deployed in the European 'part of the country' (in reality there were about 21, two of which were only on paper and without any troops, source is Боевой Состав Советской Армии). The end result is the question of if Stalin trusted Hitler why did he deploy so many troops against him. Well, to begin, in June of 1939 Stalin did not share a border with Hitler. By June of 1941 the Soviet Union had also been involved in a few wars/invasions, that is the Winter War, war with Japanese troops at Khalkhin Gol, the invasion of Eastern Poland, and the occupation of the Baltics and Bessarabia and Bukovina. All of this context is forgotten about. Lastly, while Stalin might have trusted in the non-aggression pact, that is not Hitler per se, but a beneficial pact to both countries, he was not stupid and understood that war was on the horizon.

    Now, on pg. xxii we're presented with the idea that since Zhukov and Vasilevsky wrote up a pre-emptive strike against Germany, they were awarded the rank of Marshal two years later. There is no correlation between one and the other aside from in the author's mind, fallacy doesn't even begin to cover the kind of ignorance being pandered here. Yet these kinds of out-of-context conclusions are the type of evidence you should be prepared to believe in, since that's all he'll give you. Leaving out context once more he describes the leaders of the Communist Party as all having aliases, which they did, hinting that they took those aliases because of their criminal pasts. He of course leaves out the fact that Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev most likely undertook aliases to hide their Jewish identities which they no longer identified with.

    What Suvorov is also keen to do is make up situations, create straw men, and then knock them down all the while casting blame on various figures. He blames Trotsky and Lenin for 'demolishing the Russian army' and claims that Germany's position was 'completely hopeless' leaving out the fact that Germany proper had yet to be invaded and it was the French army that was collapsing, as well as the Russian army which simply could do nothing more of substance after the casualties from Brusilov's offensive. What evidence does he give you? None, aside from "Russia was allied with the mighty French and British colonial empires", empires that would have been defeated on mainland Europe if not for Russia's advances against Germany in 1914 and the destruction of two Russian armies at Tannenberg. But, once more, are the conclusions you, the reader, have to accept without question. Simulatenously he blames Lenin and Trotsky once again on the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, forgetting that German forces were forging into Russian territory practically unopposed and it was a sacrifice Lenin was willing to make since he believed in a future world revolution which would return the territory to Russia. This is actually evident in the book itself, pg. 28, when he quotes Zinoviev saying that peace will be temporary and that peace with Germany will only be 'episodic'. Unfortunately this is solely a quote that starts the chapter, not something Suvorov would go into detail about, since it would prove counterproductive to his underlying lies. Suvorov also forgets that one of the reasons the Bolsheviks were able to seize power was thanks to their platform of being against the war, one of the main reasons Alexander Kerensky's government did not last. Will you read about any of this here? No, because this man is not an historian, nor does he know much about the subject matter he dictates to you, the reader.

    When discussing the treaty of Rapallo, which he never names (go figure), he describes how Stalin apparently "prepared Germany for a second world war." He forgets that Stalin was not in a position to dictate such actions in the early 1920s, he also omits how much the Soviets received from the Germans through their officer exchange programs, etc. (see " The Red Army and the Wehrmacht: How the Soviets Militarized Germany, 1922-33, and Paved the Way for Fascism" although most of the militarization really took part after Hitler came to power).

    On pg. 20 Suvorov claims Stalin 'presented Hitler with Poland, and the rest of Europe.' Really? What happened to the fact that Stalin wanted to ally with England and France against Hitler? What happened to Stalin wanting to send the Red Army to help protect Czechoslovakia before England and France gave it away at Munich? You won't find that information here, rather, Stalin 'presented' Hitler with Poland, sure thing.

    The chapter on "Stalin and the Destruction of Soviet Strategic Aviation" is greatly lacking. The Soviet Union, after the purges of the Red Army, convinced itself through propaganda that any attack would be easily repulsed and the war would be taken to the enemy. Hence there was no need for a strategic air force, rather one that supported the Red Army operationally and tactically. Hence the IL-2 and the PE-2 rather than ineffective mass strategic bomber strikes which from a large altitude did less damage than they were worth. The reason Soviet pilots were no match for their German counterparts? They weren't taught to dogfight. Proof? None. Once more context is forgotten when speaking of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks. Yes, they were excellent designs and proved their worth in battle. But, the Germans still succeeded in destroying or capturing the majority of them throughout 1941 for a variety of reasons, not exactly proof of a country preparing to go to war with battle-tested weapons and crews. It isn't only the tank design that needs to be studied but in what atmosphere they operated in. The chaotic days of June/July 1941 were not representative of an armed force readying for war, rather a surprised Red Army scrambling for its life.

    Suvorov also claims that BT tanks were to be used as an 'offensive' tank along the enemy's road system, aka autobahn. Problem is, BT tanks were built in the early 1930s, before the creation of the autobahn. In general, little is said of the design history of any tank and the problems they encountered, only that they were 'the best in the world.' Suvorov's biggest problem is that he thinks defensive actions on the part of an armed force consist solely of defensive actions. Counter-attacks and offensives are a moot point for him, this master strategist, who apparently has no idea of what defensive warfare consists of. Thus, when speaking of paratroopers, he states that they can only be used on the offensive, OK, but that offensive action can be part of a defensive campaign.

    Some of the nonsensical 'facts' Suvorov draws to the readers attention are an order issued by Tukhachevsky on June 23, 1921, then follows up with 'twenty years later, Russia would be invaded...' Really? Did this order of Tukhachevsky about how to handle 'bandits' predict the German invasion of the Soviet Union? If not, why is it mentioned? Stretching reality to fit his own twisted version of history, nothing more nothing less.

    One of the worst chapters of this book is entitled 'The Cleansing' rather the the purge that actually took place. This chapter tries to claim that the Red Army purges were not as detrimental to the Red Army as many had assumed. True enough, the problem is the atmosphere that they left in their wake. Over 600 generals were arrested, those who took their place were new to their positions. One example, Kirponos, the commander of the Kiev Military District on the eve of the German invasion of the Soviet Union commanded a division during the Winter War against Finland. He was a competent commander but totally out of his league as a military district, and soon front, commander. Independent thinking and actions were curbed, generals sought out orders and assurances of those orders before they could even begin to think or act. Once again, context is ignored, numbers are thrown around as if they are the answer to all your questions.

    All of the above is found within the first 100 pages of this book. At times I have to say I have to force myself to continue to read such drivel. There is also plenty I've left out and which would require pages upon pages to document and put into a historical context. Hard to feel anything but pity and disgust at such a horrid work of fiction being passed off as history, even worse, accepted as the latter by a gullible public.
    "This isn't Paris, you will not get through here with a Marching Parade!" Defenders of Stalingrad
    "Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.... And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth". Mark Twain
    "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. Voltaire

  • #2
    What did you expect?

    One is tempted to think Suvorov is a false flag operation to scare historians away about some of the more important underlying topics he touches and then proceeds to umm rape.

    The man surely has fans, but so has Ron Paul. Hell, I recently learned there's a whole bunch of people out there claiming the heliocentric model is a hoax and that the earth stands still. Now, that's way kookier than what Suvorov writes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Kunikov View Post
      Viktor Suvorov, AKA Rezun, is a spy and traitor.
      I am sure you have family members or relatives who were in the Soviet military, police, were members of the Soviet communist party and they can be also called traitors as they like millions of others communists, officers, soldiers did nothing to prevent removing communist system and consequent disintegration of the USSR in the late 1980s-1991. Mr Rezun just deserted the Soviet system earlier than your relatives who did it a bit later.
      In reality most of Soviet citizens were ready to betray the USSR, they simply had not had the opportunity till the late 1980s

      Suvorov also forgets that one of the reasons the Bolsheviks were able to seize power was thanks to their platform of being against the war, one of the main reasons Alexander Kerensky's government did not last.
      Bolsheviks spoke about the necessity of quitting imperialist war and starting class war.
      Last edited by Shamil; 21 May 09, 05:31.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Shamil View Post
        I am sure you have family members or relatives who were in the Soviet military, police, were members of the Soviet communist party and they can be also called traitors as they like millions of others communists, officers, soldiers did nothing to prevent removing communist system and consequent disintegration of the USSR in the late 1980s-1991. Mr Rezun just deserted the Soviet system earlier than your relatives who did it a bit later.
        In reality most of Soviet citizens were ready to betray the USSR, they simply had not had the opportunity till the late 1980s
        Shamil as usual substituted facts with declarations.
        Rezun is traitor not because he deserted from the USSR, but because he cooperated with foreign Intelligence Service. Millions of people, you are citing here didn't work with that sort of services.
        And what liar Rezun it is well-known for everybody, who ever read his "non-science fiction" books among real historians, but not lamers from history
        If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

        Comment


        • #5
          Working with foreign intelligence services to help bring down the beast makes him a hero in my book. Personally I would've jumped at the opportunity during the occupation (but I am not Russian so that makes it a bit different, but still I've a hard time to consider people working to bring down the tyranny as traitors - its more the other way around). Unfortunately, being a hero, doesn't change his unfortunate habit of gross exaggeration and having fallacious logic circuits. Telling lies differs from making errors of logic.

          BTW I am not saying that his conclusions are wrong - they might be right. I am just saying that based on my rather limited reading of his stuff, he draws very specific conclusions from very circumstantial evidence.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by amvas View Post
            Shamil as usual substituted facts with declarations.
            Rezun is traitor not because he deserted from the USSR, but because he cooperated with foreign Intelligence Service. Millions of people, you are citing here didn't work with that sort of services.
            There is no difference between an officer who vowed to defend some country and political system and does nothing when their further existance is danger and an officer who cooperates with foreign Intelligence Service. Both are traitors to the system and state they served. Rezun does not differ from millions of others in this respect.

            And what liar Rezun it is well-known for everybody, who ever read his "non-science fiction" books among real historians, but not lamers from history
            Most of these real historians writing about the USSR of that period come from Soviet-Russian historic school where history has totally been in the service of state ideology. They wrote what they were demanded to. If they agree with Rezun in something today, they will publicly denounce all their professional activity and life. So it is a small wonder that these "real" historias have already written more than 30 anti-Suvorov books.
            Last edited by Shamil; 21 May 09, 09:42.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Shamil View Post
              There is no difference between an officer who vowed to defend some country and political system and does nothing when their further existance is danger and an officer who cooperates with foreign Intelligence Service. Both are traitors to the system and state they served. Rezun does not differ from millions of others in this respect.
              Yes, if it would be war agaisnt some external enemy. But in the case of the USSR, when collapse of the political system took place your words meant officers had to start the Second Civil War.
              Strongly disagree with this your statement

              Most of these real historians writing about the USSR of that period come from Soviet-Russian historic school where history has totally been in the service of state ideology. They wrote what they were demanded to. If they agree with Rezun in something today, they will publicly denounce all their professional activity and life. So it is a small wonder that these "real" historias have already written more than 30 anti-Suvorov books.
              The most popular modern historians in Russia are not from the soviet times and are enough young. The most valuable books about WWII history are written by men, who are 25-35 years old. And most arguments are against Rezun not because they are denouncing some their previous ideas and theories, but simply because Rezun is liar.
              Among those 30(?) anti-Suvorov's books are enough beginners (I myself had good laugh at some of those), but are some works of serious authors.
              I have about 4-5 anti-suvorov's books and have no ideas why such a figure (30) appeared in your words
              If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pp(est) View Post
                What did you expect?

                One is tempted to think Suvorov is a false flag operation to scare historians away about some of the more important underlying topics he touches and then proceeds to umm rape.

                The man surely has fans, but so has Ron Paul. Hell, I recently learned there's a whole bunch of people out there claiming the heliocentric model is a hoax and that the earth stands still. Now, that's way kookier than what Suvorov writes.
                I wanted those who have yet to read him to understand what specifically he discusses and how he distorts history.
                "This isn't Paris, you will not get through here with a Marching Parade!" Defenders of Stalingrad
                "Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.... And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth". Mark Twain
                "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. Voltaire

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Shamil View Post
                  I am sure you have family members or relatives who were in the Soviet military, police, were members of the Soviet communist party and they can be also called traitors as they like millions of others communists, officers, soldiers did nothing to prevent removing communist system and consequent disintegration of the USSR in the late 1980s-1991. Mr Rezun just deserted the Soviet system earlier than your relatives who did it a bit later.
                  In reality most of Soviet citizens were ready to betray the USSR, they simply had not had the opportunity till the late 1980s
                  Rezun defected, he did not emigrate, there is a difference.


                  Originally posted by Shamil View Post
                  Bolsheviks spoke about the necessity of quitting imperialist war and starting class war.
                  Has no baring on what I wrote, my statement still stands: Bolsheviks were more successful than Kerensky's government because they pursued a platform against the First World War.
                  "This isn't Paris, you will not get through here with a Marching Parade!" Defenders of Stalingrad
                  "Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.... And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth". Mark Twain
                  "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. Voltaire

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by amvas View Post
                    Yes, if it would be war agaisnt some external enemy. But in the case of the USSR, when collapse of the political system took place your words meant officers had to start the Second Civil War.
                    Strongly disagree with this your statement
                    They are still traitors. It does not matter what external or internal threat is.
                    All the former Suvorov colleagues from Soviet security services that were to counter internal threats to keep the USSR in 1985 -1991 are traitors to the USSR just like Suvorov. Your beloved prime-minister Putin is also a Soviet traitor though he tries to revive Soviet propagandist approaches today.

                    However, your mentioning the option of civil war means that you admit that large proportion of the Soviet population hated the USSR and Soviet system so much that was ready to fight against this state and system and in this case they are sure to cooperate with foreign states and their intelligence services to bring down the state and its regime. So Victor Rezun acted just like most of Soviet citizens would have acted.


                    The most popular modern historians in Russia are not from the soviet times and are enough young. The most valuable books about WWII history are written by men, who are 25-35 years old. And most arguments are against Rezun not because they are denouncing some their previous ideas and theories, but simply because Rezun is liar.
                    Among those 30(?) anti-Suvorov's books are enough beginners (I myself had good laugh at some of those), but are some works of serious authors.
                    I have about 4-5 anti-suvorov's books and have no ideas why such a figure (30) appeared in your words
                    Here is incomplete list of anti-Suvorov books. I wonder how many their authors fit the age category 25-35

                    Хмелевский П. Навстречу смерчу. Сталинский "блицкриг", которого не было и не могло быть. М. "Московский рабочий" 1991.

                    Gorodetsky G. On the Eve of the War. 1994.

                    Городецкий Г. Миф ледокола. Перевод с английского. Москва. Прогресс-академия. 1995.

                    Полканов В.Д. "Ледокол" исследовательской неряшливости и отсебятины. (О книге В. Суворова. "Ледокол") Критический очерк. Омск. 1996.

                    Группа авторов. Шулер от истории. 1996.

                    Морозов А. Антикрыголам. Киев. 1996.

                    Розенбаум С.К. Антисуворов. Критическое осмысление одной псевдоисторической теории. Филадельфия. 1996.

                    Лифшиц В. Антиледокол. Разоблачение фальсификатора. Нью-Йорк. 1997.

                    "Ледокол" Суворова, или что можно сделать с историей. Методический материал к спецкурсу. Составитель Б.П. Дементьев. Пермь. Изд. Пермского университета. 1997.

                    Новаковский В. Антисуворов: поиск истины. 120 вопросов писателю-историку В. Суворову. Тель-Авив, 1998. Герцлия, Isradon, 2004.

                    Кадетов А. Как Виктор Суворов предавал Аквариум.

                    Никольский В. Аквариум-2. Москва. Гея итэрум. 1999.

                    Кадетов А. Аквариум-3. Москва. Гея итэрум. 1999.

                    Gorodetsky G. Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia, 1999.

                    Куманев Г. А. Подвиг и подлог. Москва. Русское слово. 2000.

                    Колобов И. Ледокол лжи. В защиту исторической правды. Ростов-на-Дону. 2001.

                    Помагайбо А. Псевдоисторик Суворов и загадки Второй мировой войны. Вече. 2002.

                    Зайцев В. Возвращенная победа, или Антиледокол. Киев. изд. Товарищ. 2002.

                    Суровов В. Ледокол-2. Минск. Харвест. 2003

                    Грызун В. Как Виктор Суворов сочинял историю. Москва. Олма-Пресс. 2003.

                    Терещенко А. "Оборотни" из военной разведки: девять предательств сотрудников ГРУ. Москва. Звонница-МГ. 2004.

                    Исаев А. Антисуворов. Большая ложь маленького человечка. Москва. "Яуза", "Эксмо". 2004.

                    Исаев А. Антисуворов. Десять мифов Второй мировой. Москва. "Яуза", "Эксмо". 2004.

                    Glantz D. Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War II.

                    Glantz D. Jonathan House. When Titans Clash.

                    Варенников В., Карпов В., Зиновьев А. и др. Священная война 1941-1945. Москва. Изд. Оружие и технологии. 2005.

                    Нарочницкая Н. За что и с кем мы воевали. М. 2005.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "When Titans Clashed" is not anti-Suvorov.

                      And are you quoting Suvorov himself:
                      Суровов В. Ледокол-2. Минск. Харвест. 2003
                      as anti-Suvorov?
                      "This isn't Paris, you will not get through here with a Marching Parade!" Defenders of Stalingrad
                      "Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.... And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth". Mark Twain
                      "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. Voltaire

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kunikov View Post

                        And are you quoting Suvorov himself:
                        Суровов В. Ледокол-2. Минск. Харвест. 2003
                        as anti-Suvorov?
                        Here is the text of this book published in Minsk

                        http://militera.lib.ru/research/surovov/index.html

                        The name of the book is just a cheap trick of other author. Its content is clearly anti-Suvorov one.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You also omitted:
                          Владимир Веселов
                          Новый антиСуворов
                          Яуза, Эксмо, 2009 г.
                          "This isn't Paris, you will not get through here with a Marching Parade!" Defenders of Stalingrad
                          "Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.... And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth". Mark Twain
                          "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. Voltaire

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Shamil View Post
                            They are still traitors. It does not matter what external or internal threat is.
                            All the former Suvorov colleagues from Soviet security services that were to counter internal threats to keep the USSR in 1985 -1991 are traitors to the USSR just like Suvorov. Your beloved prime-minister Putin is also a Soviet traitor though he tries to revive Soviet propagandist approaches today.
                            You are trying to call everybody traitors not to call traitor one given person. It's obvious...

                            However, your mentioning the option of civil war means that you admit that large proportion of the Soviet population hated the USSR and Soviet system so much that was ready to fight against this state and system and in this case they are sure to cooperate with foreign states and their intelligence services to bring down the state and its regime. So Victor Rezun acted just like most of Soviet citizens would have acted.
                            It's your interpretation of my words.
                            Now my view on of what you said.
                            Yes, a large portion of the soviet citizens were not fond of the Soviet regime.
                            That doesn't mean they hated it. Lots of people dreamed to change it in this or that way. It was not clear to them how they could do this and what means they needed to use for this. Finally it was not obvious what they were going to build instead of the Soviet regime. That's why nationalist ideas (like in Baltic states and Ukraine) occupied a large part of mind of their population. Of course, foreign intelligence took an active part in all those processes. I'm not going to speak about scales, but some "democratic leaders" of Russia also can be called traitors in this case. And people knew their names. That's why they are political dead bodies here now, in spite of all efforts of western mass-media to show them as "fighters against Putin's regime"




                            Here is incomplete list of anti-Suvorov books. I wonder how many their authors fit the age category 25-35

                            Хмелевский П. Навстречу смерчу. Сталинский "блицкриг", которого не было и не могло быть. М. "Московский рабочий" 1991.
                            Published in Soviet times. so, it's not the subject of our discussion. that time all historians were Soviet here

                            Gorodetsky G. On the Eve of the War. 1994.
                            Published abroad, not in Russia

                            Городецкий Г. Миф ледокола. Перевод с английского. Москва. Прогресс-академия. 1995.
                            Translated from English

                            Полканов В.Д. "Ледокол" исследовательской неряшливости и отсебятины. (О книге В. Суворова. "Ледокол") Критический очерк. Омск. 1996.
                            Hmmm.. I wonder, how many pages is in this work.
                            Yes, the author is old enough

                            Группа авторов. Шулер от истории. 1996.
                            Who are in thois mysterious group? And where it was published?

                            Морозов А. Антикрыголам. Киев. 1996.
                            Published in Ukraine

                            Розенбаум С.К. Антисуворов. Критическое осмысление одной псевдоисторической теории. Филадельфия. 1996.
                            Published in USA

                            Лифшиц В. Антиледокол. Разоблачение фальсификатора. Нью-Йорк. 1997.
                            Published in USA

                            "Ледокол" Суворова, или что можно сделать с историей. Методический материал к спецкурсу. Составитель Б.П. Дементьев. Пермь. Изд. Пермского университета. 1997.
                            Internal university publication. Not for wide range of readers

                            Новаковский В. Антисуворов: поиск истины. 120 вопросов писателю-историку В. Суворову. Тель-Авив, 1998. Герцлия, Isradon, 2004.
                            Published in Israel

                            Кадетов А. Как Виктор Суворов предавал Аквариум.
                            A beginner. I laughed much at his book. Made maybe even more mistakes than Rezun himself

                            Никольский В. Аквариум-2. Москва. Гея итэрум. 1999.
                            He's not a historian, he's Maj.-General of GRU

                            Кадетов А. Аквариум-3. Москва. Гея итэрум. 1999.
                            See comments above

                            Gorodetsky G. Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia, 1999.
                            foreign book

                            Куманев Г. А. Подвиг и подлог. Москва. Русское слово. 2000.
                            Published in 1000 copies in 3 editions (3*1000=3000).
                            Strange for "famous historian", eh?

                            Колобов И. Ледокол лжи. В защиту исторической правды. Ростов-на-Дону. 2001.
                            Almost unknown author. Published by regional publishing house

                            Помагайбо А. Псевдоисторик Суворов и загадки Второй мировой войны. Вече. 2002.
                            Also very funny book of the beginner, but hope more useful than the previous mentioned funny one...

                            Зайцев В. Возвращенная победа, или Антиледокол. Киев. изд. Товарищ. 2002.
                            Published in Ukraine

                            Суровов В. Ледокол-2. Минск. Харвест. 2003
                            Published in Byelorussia

                            Грызун В. Как Виктор Суворов сочинял историю. Москва. Олма-Пресс. 2003.
                            Parody to Rezun's style of "science"

                            Терещенко А. "Оборотни" из военной разведки: девять предательств сотрудников ГРУ. Москва. Звонница-МГ. 2004.
                            It's not about Rezun's books, but about traitors themselves

                            Исаев А. Антисуворов. Большая ложь маленького человечка. Москва. "Яуза", "Эксмо". 2004.
                            Maybe one of the first serious anti-Rezun's works
                            A. Isaev is a bit younger than me, I guess... To call him "soviet" you need to have large imagination

                            Исаев А. Антисуворов. Десять мифов Второй мировой. Москва. "Яуза", "Эксмо". 2004.
                            continuation of the previous work

                            Glantz D. Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War II.
                            Wow, Glantz is also Soviet auther! My congratulations!...

                            Published abroad

                            Glantz D. Jonathan House. When Titans Clash.
                            Published abroad. Not anti-Rezun's work, but individual research

                            Варенников В., Карпов В., Зиновьев А. и др. Священная война 1941-1945. Москва. Изд. Оружие и технологии. 2005.
                            Not anti-Rezun's work

                            Нарочницкая Н. За что и с кем мы воевали. М. 2005.
                            Not anti-Rezun's work. Probably in both last two works they could blaim Rezun, but those books are devoted not to Rezun's theories.

                            So, finally we can't see any significant number of anti-Rezun's books, written by so called "historians with Soviet practice"
                            If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by amvas View Post
                              Of course, foreign intelligence took an active part in all those processes.
                              "If you have too firm a belief in the glories of soldiering, try a war."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X