No, he writes like a Soviet apologist. When former GRU Officer and Soviet defector Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, known by his pseudonym of Viktor Suvorov published Icebreaker in 1990, his assertion that Stalin had planned to invade Europe was ridiculed. With the opening of the Soviet archives, his assertions were shown to be true with a fe…
No, he writes like a Soviet apologist. When former GRU Officer and Soviet defector Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, known by his pseudonym of Viktor Suvorov published Icebreaker in 1990, his assertion that Stalin had planned to invade Europe was ridiculed. With the opening of the Soviet archives, his assertions were shown to be true with a few exceptions. There have been several others who have accessed the archives and written their own tomes which confirm much of Suvarov's book. One more recent work is by John Wear - Germany’s War: The Origins, Aftermath and Atrocities of World War II. Which goes into some detail of the accusations of the Nuremberg Trials. I note both are missing from Big Serge's reading lists. I am not going to suggest the Germans committed no "war crimes", however, some of those allegations lack context. One is the alleged lists for slaughter of civilians, whether party members or Jews. As Robert Faurisson detailed decades ago, there are records of German soldiers being court martialed and executed for causing the death of civilians. The second is that the Treaty of Westphalia and later the Geneva Conventions required all combatants to be in uniform. Those not in uniform were spies, as were those who aided and abetted them. Spies could be interrogate and summarily executed. The Allied narrative declares falsely that the "partisans", "underground" and "free armies" were not spies. The Ukrainian collaborators who joined SS Units were given legitimacy because they were in uniform, as were 100s of thousands of others from across Europe who went to fight communists. Many of these units were tasked with dealing with the partisans. Again, I'm not going to suggest that there weren't mistakes made and innocent people killed, but the "lists" were most often those accused of being spies, including those aiding and abetting.
As General Leon Degrelle said, had it not been for Germany, Stalin would have been standing in Calais looking across the Channel at England. When it comes to war, the victor's lies prevail.
Anyone who knows at least something about the Red Army in 1939-1941 knows that it was in the process of rearmament and enlargement. The T-34 and KV tanks were powerful, but unreliable and, in fact, not much different from the early Tigers and Panthers. The new Yak, LaGG and MiG fighter planes, as well as Pe and Il bombers, were launched in a series with enormous difficulties. The navy was going to complete the rearmament with new subs, destroyers, cruisers and battleships by 1945 at best.
>With the opening of the Soviet archives, his assertions were shown to be true with a few exceptions
None of the modern Russian historians says anything like that. In fact, they claim the opposite. There is nothing like the USA Orange/Red/Black plans.
>The latter lays out what personnel and equipment was moved into place. It included tens of thousands of paratroopers...
But without planes for them. So yes...it was just fashion on this time.
>and tanks adapted with tires for paved roads, of which The USSR had none.
This is pure mythology. BT-class tanks used wheel drive, because before the invention of Gadfield steel, the tanks tracks usually falling apart after 100 km.
Rezun is an old-fashioned propagandist of the Cold War and people who take his seriously in the 21st century endlessly surprise me.
The reference to what was lined up to attack was in John Wear's book, including planes and the number of paratroopers. Why would you expect any of the modern Russian historians to say "anything like that" and to do anything other than "claim the opposite". As best as I can tell, the German reconnaissance of the build up in the weeks before Operation Barbarossa, that was denied to them at Nuremberg, is still not available to the public. How many people know of the massive amount of vehicles, materiel, and metals sent to the USSR post invasion, via the lend/lease plan prior to US entry into WWII. How many people know that Germany had met its disarmament obligations by 1922 and that by the time of the "Peace Conference" of 1932-1932, non of the WWI victors had even started? German "re-armament" only came after the refusal of the victors to meet their obligations and the refusal of German proposals for further reduction? This article was originally published in "The Barnes Review" in 2000. https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html
The official narrative of all wars is bullshit. Both sides lie, but the victors' lies prevail.
Geez. That your neighbours don’t take turns to beat the shit out of you every time you come out your door is another proof that liberal democracies are doomed.
Liberal is still generally defined as: 1. “willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. 2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.”
I find it ironic that both your comments are illiberal, yet you accuse me of being a threat to "liberal democracies". It is you and your ilk that have doomed "liberal democracies". In fact, you live under the delusion that they still exist. They don't, and haven't for decades. Nowhere have I suggested that National Socialism or Fascism were ideal political philosophies. There is a simple reason for that: all political and economic theories are flawed, including the sacred cows of the US, "republicanism" and"capitalism". By the way, one does not equate to the other. Sometimes the truth may be inconvenient, but it is still the truth.
USSR( stalin) had no intention and no capability to conquer france or germany. They may have supported revolutions. Supply of weapons to Spain is not same as conquering.
WW-2 is germany initiative and response of UK( reigning superpower). The fall of france was unexpected. If france has not fell, this would like WW-1. ( germany defeated )
Have you read Icebreaker or Germany’s War: The Origins, Aftermath and Atrocities of World War II? The latter lays out what personnel and equipment was moved into place. It included tens of thousands of paratroopers and tanks adapted with tires for paved roads, of which The USSR had none. The two books were based on Soviet documentation.
Author Joachim Hoffman’s work was endorsed by the Federal German Govt; that endorsement is very hard to get; as you might expect anything showing even a modicum of positive light on The Third Reich is anathema.
Leon Degrelle is correct; Stalin was planning on hitting Germany around Spring 1942. AH beat him to the punch. Another reason Soviet losses were so incredibly high - & so much materièl was captured - was that the Red Army was jammed up against the western border prepping marshaling areas & stocking up supplies for the lunge westward.
Thanks for the link. My one concern in reading the blurb is that it seems to suggest socialism is the same as communism. While there were some "state-ists" in the early movement, none were at the level of the Marx/Engels. There were as many or more anarchists/mutualists as state-ists. Proudhon, the "Father of Anarchy" called Marx "the tapeworm in socialism" and anarchist Bakunin, who thought Proudhon didn't go far enough, compared the Peoples State of Marx to a Rothschild bank. On the main topic, not too long ago, I stumbled across an article that mentioned there were two Russian historians who had published books exposing Stalin's lies about the German invasion, much along the lines of Suvarov et al. Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I found it. I used to think Henry Ford was silly to say "History is bunk". For the past 30+ years, I'm now convinced he was correct.
„When former GRU Officer and Soviet defector Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, known by his pseudonym of Viktor Suvorov published Icebreaker in 1990, his assertion that Stalin had planned to invade Europe was ridiculed. With the opening of the Soviet archives, his assertions were shown to be true with a few exceptions.“
Andrei Martyanov vehemently refuses to acknowledge this. He is otherwise such a very keen observer and an astute analyst of military affairs. I like him a lot and trust him. Why does he denigrate the findings of that book ?
Gilad Atzmon told me once that he was nearly arrested in Germany when in some lecture he suggested to students to get rid of their „Schuldkomplex“ and rather see Stalin as the aggressor, preparing for war.
It seems the time is not yet ripe for unbiased historical research.
I admire your stamina in dealing with the „critics“ !
Thank you. I try to approach things from perspective that "everybody is lying". Some lies crumble, some stand regardless of their lack of credibility, but the question that always needs to be asked is "why?", as in what is to be gained by the action or inaction. I had never really given much thought about the official narrative of WWII despite my father and 3 uncles, who served, saying "so they say" when the official narratives were spouted. My interest really started with the first Zundel trial in Canada. I was horrified that someone expressing an opinion would be charged with spreading false news, when the news was continually false on virtually every "story", including some of which I had personal knowledge. The news of the trial was skewed, but even that skewing could not cover up the facts coming out that countered the official narrative. It astonished me - a lifelong cynic. If that was false, then what else is false about the "so they say" narrative? I suppose that makes me a "revisionist" but only in the Barnes sense- aligning the facts with history, which includes context. Sometimes what you find is not pleasant, but it is what it is.
It has everything to do with why Germany lost. Germany had no plans for invasion, yet Big Serge approaches it from the standard narrative. I would add that had the massive assistance provided by the US was likely the biggest factor.
No, he writes like a Soviet apologist. When former GRU Officer and Soviet defector Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, known by his pseudonym of Viktor Suvorov published Icebreaker in 1990, his assertion that Stalin had planned to invade Europe was ridiculed. With the opening of the Soviet archives, his assertions were shown to be true with a few exceptions. There have been several others who have accessed the archives and written their own tomes which confirm much of Suvarov's book. One more recent work is by John Wear - Germany’s War: The Origins, Aftermath and Atrocities of World War II. Which goes into some detail of the accusations of the Nuremberg Trials. I note both are missing from Big Serge's reading lists. I am not going to suggest the Germans committed no "war crimes", however, some of those allegations lack context. One is the alleged lists for slaughter of civilians, whether party members or Jews. As Robert Faurisson detailed decades ago, there are records of German soldiers being court martialed and executed for causing the death of civilians. The second is that the Treaty of Westphalia and later the Geneva Conventions required all combatants to be in uniform. Those not in uniform were spies, as were those who aided and abetted them. Spies could be interrogate and summarily executed. The Allied narrative declares falsely that the "partisans", "underground" and "free armies" were not spies. The Ukrainian collaborators who joined SS Units were given legitimacy because they were in uniform, as were 100s of thousands of others from across Europe who went to fight communists. Many of these units were tasked with dealing with the partisans. Again, I'm not going to suggest that there weren't mistakes made and innocent people killed, but the "lists" were most often those accused of being spies, including those aiding and abetting.
As General Leon Degrelle said, had it not been for Germany, Stalin would have been standing in Calais looking across the Channel at England. When it comes to war, the victor's lies prevail.
Anyone who knows at least something about the Red Army in 1939-1941 knows that it was in the process of rearmament and enlargement. The T-34 and KV tanks were powerful, but unreliable and, in fact, not much different from the early Tigers and Panthers. The new Yak, LaGG and MiG fighter planes, as well as Pe and Il bombers, were launched in a series with enormous difficulties. The navy was going to complete the rearmament with new subs, destroyers, cruisers and battleships by 1945 at best.
>With the opening of the Soviet archives, his assertions were shown to be true with a few exceptions
None of the modern Russian historians says anything like that. In fact, they claim the opposite. There is nothing like the USA Orange/Red/Black plans.
>The latter lays out what personnel and equipment was moved into place. It included tens of thousands of paratroopers...
But without planes for them. So yes...it was just fashion on this time.
>and tanks adapted with tires for paved roads, of which The USSR had none.
This is pure mythology. BT-class tanks used wheel drive, because before the invention of Gadfield steel, the tanks tracks usually falling apart after 100 km.
Rezun is an old-fashioned propagandist of the Cold War and people who take his seriously in the 21st century endlessly surprise me.
The reference to what was lined up to attack was in John Wear's book, including planes and the number of paratroopers. Why would you expect any of the modern Russian historians to say "anything like that" and to do anything other than "claim the opposite". As best as I can tell, the German reconnaissance of the build up in the weeks before Operation Barbarossa, that was denied to them at Nuremberg, is still not available to the public. How many people know of the massive amount of vehicles, materiel, and metals sent to the USSR post invasion, via the lend/lease plan prior to US entry into WWII. How many people know that Germany had met its disarmament obligations by 1922 and that by the time of the "Peace Conference" of 1932-1932, non of the WWI victors had even started? German "re-armament" only came after the refusal of the victors to meet their obligations and the refusal of German proposals for further reduction? This article was originally published in "The Barnes Review" in 2000. https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html
The official narrative of all wars is bullshit. Both sides lie, but the victors' lies prevail.
Jeeesus, what’s with the fascist apologists, don’t you have anywhere else you can hang out you weird freaks?
1) You have no clue about Fascism.
2) National Socialism was different than Fascism.
3) Why should anyone apologize for the truth?
4) Do yourself a favour and read documented history, not Hollywood history.
Geez. That your neighbours don’t take turns to beat the shit out of you every time you come out your door is another proof that liberal democracies are doomed.
Liberal is still generally defined as: 1. “willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. 2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.”
I find it ironic that both your comments are illiberal, yet you accuse me of being a threat to "liberal democracies". It is you and your ilk that have doomed "liberal democracies". In fact, you live under the delusion that they still exist. They don't, and haven't for decades. Nowhere have I suggested that National Socialism or Fascism were ideal political philosophies. There is a simple reason for that: all political and economic theories are flawed, including the sacred cows of the US, "republicanism" and"capitalism". By the way, one does not equate to the other. Sometimes the truth may be inconvenient, but it is still the truth.
USSR( stalin) had no intention and no capability to conquer france or germany. They may have supported revolutions. Supply of weapons to Spain is not same as conquering.
WW-2 is germany initiative and response of UK( reigning superpower). The fall of france was unexpected. If france has not fell, this would like WW-1. ( germany defeated )
Have you read Icebreaker or Germany’s War: The Origins, Aftermath and Atrocities of World War II? The latter lays out what personnel and equipment was moved into place. It included tens of thousands of paratroopers and tanks adapted with tires for paved roads, of which The USSR had none. The two books were based on Soviet documentation.
Curmudge-
Great points! In addition to Suvorov’s work the chief Military Historian for the Bundeswehr was able to get access to Soviet archives (post Soviet collapse) & exhaustively researched & produced this compelling narrative: https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-Extermination-1941-1945-Documentation/dp/0967985684/ref=sr_1_1?crid=12600IXE9URRB&keywords=stalin%27s+war+of+extermination&qid=1683846915&s=books&sprefix=Stalin%27s+war+%2Cstripbooks%2C148&sr=1-1
Author Joachim Hoffman’s work was endorsed by the Federal German Govt; that endorsement is very hard to get; as you might expect anything showing even a modicum of positive light on The Third Reich is anathema.
Leon Degrelle is correct; Stalin was planning on hitting Germany around Spring 1942. AH beat him to the punch. Another reason Soviet losses were so incredibly high - & so much materièl was captured - was that the Red Army was jammed up against the western border prepping marshaling areas & stocking up supplies for the lunge westward.
Thanks for the link. My one concern in reading the blurb is that it seems to suggest socialism is the same as communism. While there were some "state-ists" in the early movement, none were at the level of the Marx/Engels. There were as many or more anarchists/mutualists as state-ists. Proudhon, the "Father of Anarchy" called Marx "the tapeworm in socialism" and anarchist Bakunin, who thought Proudhon didn't go far enough, compared the Peoples State of Marx to a Rothschild bank. On the main topic, not too long ago, I stumbled across an article that mentioned there were two Russian historians who had published books exposing Stalin's lies about the German invasion, much along the lines of Suvarov et al. Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I found it. I used to think Henry Ford was silly to say "History is bunk". For the past 30+ years, I'm now convinced he was correct.
Didn’t pick up the “socialism=communism” vibe from Hoffman’s work. He does call a spade a spade though.
It’s a fascinating read ;<)
You're so proud of the fact that you read the Icebreaker. Maybe it's worth reading his critics, say Isaev? http://militera.lib.ru/research/isaev_av1/index.html
You write correctly:
„When former GRU Officer and Soviet defector Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, known by his pseudonym of Viktor Suvorov published Icebreaker in 1990, his assertion that Stalin had planned to invade Europe was ridiculed. With the opening of the Soviet archives, his assertions were shown to be true with a few exceptions.“
Andrei Martyanov vehemently refuses to acknowledge this. He is otherwise such a very keen observer and an astute analyst of military affairs. I like him a lot and trust him. Why does he denigrate the findings of that book ?
Gilad Atzmon told me once that he was nearly arrested in Germany when in some lecture he suggested to students to get rid of their „Schuldkomplex“ and rather see Stalin as the aggressor, preparing for war.
It seems the time is not yet ripe for unbiased historical research.
I admire your stamina in dealing with the „critics“ !
And I like your comments on TOO .
Thank you. I try to approach things from perspective that "everybody is lying". Some lies crumble, some stand regardless of their lack of credibility, but the question that always needs to be asked is "why?", as in what is to be gained by the action or inaction. I had never really given much thought about the official narrative of WWII despite my father and 3 uncles, who served, saying "so they say" when the official narratives were spouted. My interest really started with the first Zundel trial in Canada. I was horrified that someone expressing an opinion would be charged with spreading false news, when the news was continually false on virtually every "story", including some of which I had personal knowledge. The news of the trial was skewed, but even that skewing could not cover up the facts coming out that countered the official narrative. It astonished me - a lifelong cynic. If that was false, then what else is false about the "so they say" narrative? I suppose that makes me a "revisionist" but only in the Barnes sense- aligning the facts with history, which includes context. Sometimes what you find is not pleasant, but it is what it is.
Thank you for that kind reply to my comment.
I completely agree with you on your approach to “history”.
The study of history is always revisionistic- if that’s a word - or „zurückblickend“.
But in our narrow minded western academia the term stands for something like a criminal offense. Sad state of affairs…
The final question after what where when and how is always why!
What has that to do with Big Serge's account of how Germany lost?
It has everything to do with why Germany lost. Germany had no plans for invasion, yet Big Serge approaches it from the standard narrative. I would add that had the massive assistance provided by the US was likely the biggest factor.