Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Viktor Suvorov is a somewhat famous ex-GRU spy who defected and wrote a series of books.

The most (in)famous and sensational were a series of books on World War II, starting with "Icebreaker", which alleged - with supporting historical facts and documents - that Stalin was planning to attack Nazi Germany in 1941, with the end goal of rolling over entire Europe.

Having read the book in Russian, the logic seemed fairly sound, and the cited facts sounded legit - at least to a teenager who had a decent knowledge of history for an average person but not more.

However, in study-of-history context, it seems that Suvorov's books and theories are viewed between "disputed" and "outright scientific fraud". A lot of discussions are summarized on the Wiki: Soviet Offensive Plans Controversy, but the point of view was even expressed right here on History SE in Wladimir Palant's answer to Why did Hitler attack the Soviet Union when he was still busy fighting the United Kingdom? :

I'm not aware of any serious historians favoring this theory, and Suvorov unfortunately isn't one - he seems to be willingly omit or even falsificate facts in his books by misquoting and quoting out of context.

My question is, are there specific examples of Suvorov omitting proven historical facts that majorly contradict his theories/logic, or especially falsify proven historical facts?

share|improve this question
    
To be honest, his arguments aren't very sound. Apparently one argument is that the Soviet Army built tanks that had a possibility to be adapted to run on paved roads, of which the Soviet Union had few. This is supposedly proof that they wanted to invade Germany. :-) But that assumes that 1: Stalin himself ordered the tanks. 2. He knew that the adaptation would be pointless withing the Soviet Union. None of which are likely. So it's rather the other way around: There is no indication that Stalin intended to attack. –  Lennart Regebro Nov 22 '11 at 9:26
1  
@LennartRegebro: Isaev in his book that I mention in my answer below thinks that the argumentation is flawed at a deeper level - Soviet Union wasn't the only country to develop such tanks, Great Britain, France and Sweden had them as well. Even Finland bought similar British tanks. The goal of such tanks was easier transportation of the tank - and that goal was eventually met by other means in all countries. That's an example of willful fact omission actually. –  Wladimir Palant Nov 22 '11 at 9:35
add comment

4 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

I was referring to Alexei Isaev's book Antisuvorov (Russian). He lists a bunch of falsifications in the preface of his book. First example is Suvorov's quoting of colonel S. Hvalei's book (approximate translation):

It happened that the division was immediately behind the frontier posts at the start of the war, meaning right next to the state border.

Isaev explains (and the online version of the book proves him right) that Hvalei doesn't actually say that. Instead, he says that his division met Germans after they passed the frontier posts and defeated another division. And Hvalei even mentions where it was: Kelmė, Lithuania. If I read the map correctly, this is around 70 km from the state border (the area around Kaliningrad which is Russia now belonged to Germany back then, this should be the direction from where the German forces attacked Kelmė).

The book mentions lots of similar cases. You have to consider that Icebreaker was first published in 1987 and verifying the sources was a lot harder back then. So Suvorov had no problem to adjust citations to better fit his idea.

Isaev's book also goes into more general issues. For example, one of Suvorov's core points was that the Soviet Union didn't have any defense plans - only attack plans. Isaev notes that this statement is useless if one doesn't compare to other countries. As it turns out, neither Poland nor France had defense plans - attacking the enemy regardless of who starts the war was apparently the dominating war theory at the time (and likely still is).

Isaev also explains how merely comparing the number of tanks and their technical parameters is useless. After all, all these tanks didn't help the Soviet Union at the start of the war. He notes how the Soviets didn't have proper tactics of using tanks at the beginning of the war, unlike Germans who already had lots of experience using them.

Isaev discredits a bunch of Suvorov's myths about Soviet tanks, airplanes, lines of defense and many more, his arguments are easy to verify thanks to the internet. But I cannot translate it all - it is probably easier if you ask questions about specific claims Suvorov made.

share|improve this answer
1  
Good that somebody wrote a reply to this kind of books. Let's hope it gets translated. These books annoy me, it's like the book "1421". Full of nonsense with footnotes that doesn't support the nonsense. It will fool anyone who isn't of highly skeptical nature. –  Lennart Regebro Nov 22 '11 at 10:24
    
@Wladimir - +1 in general, but the point about no defense plans looks wrong - what about Maginot line? So it seems that this point supports Suvorov, not Stalin. I would expect criticism of that point to me be more along the lines of actually producing USSR's defense plans. –  DVK Nov 22 '11 at 12:18
    
@Wladimir - I'll look at the book - no need to burden you with translation I'm perfectly capable of myself :). Much thanks for pointing the book out! –  DVK Nov 22 '11 at 12:19
1  
@DVK: As I said, in Chapter 13 Isaev also corrected Suvorov's misinformation concerning the Soviet defense lines (Suvorov seems to have greatly overestimated the capabilities of the Stalin Line while underestimating the Molotov Line). This has little to do with army's operational plans however. –  Wladimir Palant Nov 22 '11 at 12:23
2  
@DVK: The Maginot line was not a defense plan. It was a way of defending the Franco-German border so French forces could be concentrated for offensive purposes. In 1940, the plan was to advance into Belgium to meet the German army. –  David Thornley Nov 23 '11 at 4:33
show 1 more comment

I have not read these books of Suvarov but I have heard several historians like Glatz scoff at his works. While I would not put anything past Stalin from a moral point of view, he was no fool and it would have been foolish for him to attack in 1941.

Why? The army was in chaos by the purges in 1938 and from its terrible showing versus Finland. Reforms were in progress but not completed.

There were a number of changes in equipment going into effect that were partly complete. Waiting would have allowed these changes to take place smoothly.

The final reason was that the Soviets well knew there were plenty of forces in the area waiting if a Soviet attack occurred. Unlike Poland and Finland, there was no chance of an easy win.

share|improve this answer
    
So you seem to concur that Stalin would have attacked Hitler - just not in 1941 but at some later date? –  Felix Goldberg Mar 1 at 0:54
    
I don't think Stalin was a nice fellow or a good neighbor, no. But he wasn't dumb, and he knew the longer he kept out of war the stronger his position would be. –  Oldcat Mar 1 at 1:01
    
@Oldcat: I helps if you read the books before discussing them ;). Suvorov actually brings up counter-arguments to everything you say. E.g. he claims that the Soviet Union being unprepared is a myth created by Soviet historians to explain the losses at the start of the war. Also, if you look at raw numbers (like Suvorov does), the Soviet Union indeed outnumbered Germany both in soldiers and most of the equipment. Still, his argumentation is everything but solid. –  Wladimir Palant Mar 1 at 19:49
add comment

Problem is the established version comes either from the West (which seems to be unable to look at communism and nazism as twins, not contradictions) or Russia (which tries hard to glorify it's WWII effort.

CCCP was interested in territorial expansion and the invasion of Finland, Baltic States and Poland should prove that to everyone. It was exactly as nazism - a dictatorship in which military had crucial role.

I agree that some of the Suvorov's arguments are poor, but his writings consist of tens if not hundreds of them. Sure - he sounds paranoid and over-sells on a lot of occasions, but as a citizen of eastern European country I can understand his position.

As for german army protecting Europe from communism - how is this relevant? The cont-arguemnent is simple - Germany did not attack France to prevent the spread of communism. Communism's home country was in entirely different direction. 2 socialism went to war with each other eventually - I say not a moment too soon, and it doesn't make them pure all of sudden. Europe under Stalins rule would end up exactly as under Hitler's. People would die by millions.

share|improve this answer
3  
Lots of opinions, not much in the way of historical research. –  Mark C. Wallace Feb 28 at 9:44
    
Aye - I cannot argue with data. I was pointing at what other users wrote in this thread. I'm not decided either on side of Suvorov or against him because of that. He is overusing arguments, and, because of the sheer number of them, lacks in quality. He does make good points in total though. I wrote what I wrote mainly because of one person stating Suvorov goes along the line that Germany helped prevent the spread of communism in Europe. It kinda got me worked up I guess –  Shmelke Feb 28 at 12:54
    
Please note that what @DonatoADC actually said is: "Suvorov's thesis which some could certainly interpret as Hitler's Germany fighting to preserve Europe from Communism." He did not necessarily ascribe this notion to Suvorov himself. –  Felix Goldberg Feb 28 at 21:36
    
Stalin was a bad dude, but many historians ascribe a motive of the aggression against the Baltic States, Poland, and Finland to increasing the buffer space between the vital parts of the USSR and Germany. –  Oldcat Mar 1 at 1:08
add comment

I'm new to this topic so not a lot to offer. However, from what I've read it's the western historians who seem to dispute this theory of Hitler beating Stalin to the punch with the most verve. Some Russian historians do support Suvorov's hypothesis. In any revisionist look at WWII one must consider the political motivations of even allegedly unbiased historians. It is my view that the West would never let it's version of WWII history be disputed by something as volatile as Suvorov's thesis which some could certainly interpret as Hitler's Germany fighting to preserve Europe from Communism.
It strikes me as unusually heated the way some western historians so easily cast Suvorov's thesis off as nonsense. They seem to hold it to a far higher standard than they do other historical events. For example, many western historians main point of contention with Suvorov's claim is that there is little evidentiary support for it. However, how about the Soviet invasion of Finland in winter '39? There is also very little evidentiary support of the planning for that operation, yet it certainly took place...and not very well apparently given the nasty shock the Finns gave the Soviets.
Anyway, interesting topic but I doubt the passions involved would allow the "established" version of WWII on the eastern front to ever be challenged.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 specifically for the Finland angle. –  Felix Goldberg Feb 28 at 21:34
    
+1 although IMHO you could further improve your answer by naming some of the books and authors you mention currently only in aggregate form. In any case: welcome to History SE. –  Drux Mar 1 at 11:05
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.