'Icebreaker'

[eggheadbanga]

Calvin

Why can’t you but “Icebreaker” for under $250 if it’s such a pile of horseshit? The same people who don’t want you to watch Mr Death don’t want you to read Icebreaker Cerberus.

Burrhus

I've wanted to read Icebreaker also. Why is it so expensive? Hmmm?

Another silly rhetorical question.

Answer: because it was published in English in 1990, having been published in Russian in 1988 while its Soviet-defector author was in exile. Books go out of print.

When as will be seen the book's thesis is superseded by more detailed and better sourced expositions of the same argument, then there is even more reason for the book to go out of print.

I recall seeing a hardback copy of 'Icebreaker' sitting on the shelves in Foyles', Charing Cross Road, London, for approximately 10-12 years, unsold.

I'm sure Suvorov's book can be ordered through interlibrary loan to your local library.

Now one might have thought that being as the thesis of 'Lekodol' is so offensive to the memory of the still-revered Stalin, that the book would be unavailable in Russian.

Wrong, essentially all his books are available online in Russian, and thus for free.
http://www.suvorov.com/books/
http://lib.ru/WSUWOROW/
http://militera.lib.ru/research/index.html

as indeed are a large number of critiques of Suvorov's thesis by Russian writers.

The main reason that Suvorov's book is out of print in the west is because its argument has been superseded by the works of Joachim Hoffmann, Heinz Magenheimer (both available in English), Mikhail Meltiukhov (in Russian only), and numerous publicistic summaries, e.g by Werner Maser (in German).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_Missed_Chance

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A4ventivschlagthese

For the contrary view in English, see David Glantz's Stumbling Colossus, and Gabriel Gorodetsky's books. Glantz's book is actually indispensible if one is genuinely interested in the history of the Eastern Front, the wealth of detail is remarkable.

[Panzerfaust Boy]

dovnload victor's books and articles for free, through emule

[cerberus]

calvin ( Via Milhouse)Why can’t you but “Icebreaker” for under $250 if it’s such a pile of horseshit? The same people who don’t want you to watch Mr Death don’t want you to read Icebreaker Cerberus.

$250 for "Icebreaker".
I would read it but I would not buy it , likewise I would watch " Dr. Death" if it were shown on a Uk TV channel .
$250 - Would this be value for money , no it would not.
I have a reciept in front of me for $263 from Aberdeen Bookstore - 3 x Volumes by Michael Beaver "Uniforms of the Waffen SS" - I don't mind paying for decent reference books - "Icebreaker" would not be in this league.
"Icebreaker",a bit like a copy of Men Only you might look through it , but you would not buy it nor take it too seriously.;)

MilhouseFor the contrary view in English, see David Glantz's Stumbling Colossus
Glantz has a name for writing good history, also see John Erickson " Road to Stalingrad" and "The Road to Berlin" an excellent historian.

[Trojan]

Isn't this the book that claimed Stalin was weeks away from the invasion of Eastern Europe when Hitler invaded Russia?

[cerberus]

Trojan
Isn't this the book that claimed Stalin was weeks away from the invasion of Eastern Europe when Hitler invaded Russia?
One good reason to save $250.

[calvin]

For the contrary view in English, see David Glantz's Stumbling Colossus, and Gabriel Gorodetsky's books

Wouldn't it be a "coincidence" if these two turned out to be Jewish?

[eggheadbanga]

Wouldn't it be a "coincidence" if these two turned out to be Jewish?

What makes you think these are the only two historians to have written critiques of Suvorov? They are just two of the more prominent ones.

[calvin]

For the contrary view in English, see David Glantz's Stumbling Colossus, and Gabriel Gorodetsky's books. Glantz's book is actually indispensible if one is genuinely interested in the history of the Eastern Front, the wealth of detail is remarkable.

What makes you think these are the only two historians to have written critiques of Suvorov? They are just two of the more prominent ones

Nice strawman Milhouse! Now tell me where I said that Glantz and Gorodetsky were the only two historians to have written critiques of Suvorov?

It doesn’t matter how many historians have critiqued Suvorov since you have now admitted that two of the most prominent critics, one of whom is in fact “indispensable”, are Jewish.

[HELLSTAR_trek]

I have a reciept in front of me for $263 from Aberdeen Bookstore - 3 x Volumes by Michael Beaver "Uniforms of the Waffen SS" - I don't mind paying for decent reference books

Is that where the real substance of National Socialism is located: in its fashions?

[eggheadbanga]

Nice strawman Milhouse! Now tell me where I said that Glantz and Gorodetsky were the only two historians to have written critiques of Suvorov?

I know it may be hard for you to grasp, but these two were recommended because they wrote in English, the main part of the debate is among German and Russian historians.

It doesn’t matter how many historians have critiqued Suvorov since you have now admitted that two of the most prominent critics, one of whom is in fact “indispensable”, are Jewish.

I actually 'admitted' no such thing. I merely wanted to highlight the utter stupidity of drawing conclusions from whether or not an author is Jewish.

For the record: I have no idea whether Glantz is Jewish; he is a retired US Army intelligence colonel who specialised for most of his career on the study of the Soviet Army. That is all he has ever written about. Gorodetsky is a Russian Israeli and all he's ever written about to my knowledge is Soviet history. He's incidentally very critical of Stalin's foreign policy from the 1920s onwards.

Do you wish to discuss this rationally or are you going to jump up and down in your pinstriped monkey suit as usual?

[cerberus]

HELLSTAR_Trek
Is that where the real substance of National Socialism is located: in its fashions?
No - for that I have (not too far from me) Kershaws Biography of Hitler , Overy's "The Dictators" and "Leaders and personalities of The Third Reich" published by Bender. ( Amongest others).
My point was I could spend the money on better.

[calvin]

I actually 'admitted' no such thing. I merely wanted to highlight the utter stupidity of drawing conclusions from whether or not an author is Jewish

So you would be quite happy for an investigation into anti-Semitism in the UK to be conducted by the Muslim Parliament of Britain?

Do you wish to discuss this rationally or are you going to jump up and down in your pinstriped monkey suit as usual?

There are a number of serious historians who believe that Stalin was planning to invade Germany and that Hitler simply pre-empted him. The opposition to this theory is being led by an Israeli Jew, surprise, surprise! It just shows you how a supposedly controversial theory can gain widespread credibility when there are no laws in place to punish and imprison people who dare to question the orthodox poodle-historian view.

[eggheadbanga]

So you would be quite happy for an investigation into anti-Semitism in the UK to be conducted by the Muslim Parliament of Britain?

So you're quite happy that German historians might seek to exculpate Nazi Germany?

There are a number of serious historians who believe that Stalin was planning to invade Germany and that Hitler simply pre-empted him.

And they are all anti-communists (Russia) or right-wing (Germany).

You see, your ad hominem theory of determining who is to be believed cuts both ways.

The opposition to this theory is being led by an Israeli Jew, surprise, surprise!

No, it's not. Gorodetsky's book is one of many that rejects the Suvorov thesis. It happens however to be available in English, which the multiple specialist collections and discussions in German and Russian are not.

Here is a small sample of the work written in Russian on this subject. Since the preventitive war thesis concerns SOVIET intentions this is logically the most important literature to examine.

Bezmensky (2000)
http://militera.lib.ru/research/bezymensky3/index.html

Zaitsev (2000) 'Antilekodol'
http://militera.lib.ru/research/zaitsev/index.html

Isaev (2004) 'Antisuvorov' (2 vols)
http://militera.lib.ru/research/isaev_av1/index.html
http://militera.lib.ru/research/isaev_av2/index.html

Riabyshev, ed. (2004) 'Logika i Lekodol'
http://militera.lib.ru/research/ryabyshev_sa/index.html

Zorin (2005)
http://militera.lib.ru/research/zorin_aa/index.html

^
this is far from exhaustive, there was much discussion earlier in the 1990s.

and in German:

Wigbert Benz, „Die Lüge vom deutschen Präventivkrieg 1941.“ In: Geschichte lernen: Legenden – Mythen – Lügen. H.52 (1996). Friedrich-Verlag in Zusammenarbeit mit Klett, S.54-59
Wigbert Benz, Die Präventivkriegsthese. Zu Ursachen und Charakter des "Unternehmens Barbarossa" 1941. (online)
Lew Besymenski Stalin und Hitler. Das Pokerspiel der Diktatoren. ISBN 3351025394
Bianka Pietrow-Ennker (Hrsg.): Präventivkrieg? Der deutsche Angriff auf die Sowjetunion. Fischer Taschenbuchverlag, Frankfurt 2000
Constantine Pleshakov: Stalin's Folly: The Tragic First Ten Days of World War Two on the Eastern Front, 2005 ISBN 0618367012
Gerd R. Ueberschär, Lev A. Bezymenskij (Hrsg.): Der deutsche Angriff auf die Sowjetunion 1941. Die Kontroverse um die Präventivkriegsthese Wissenschaftliche Buchgemeinschaft, Darmstadt 1998 (der Band enthält alle wichtigen Dokumente)
Oleg Wischljow: Zu militärischen Absichten und Plänen der UdSSR im Sommer 1941. In: Babette Quinkert (Hrsg.): „Wir sind die Herren dieses Landes“. Ursachen, Verlauf und Folgen des deutschen Überfalls auf die Sowjetunion. VSA-Verlag, Hamburg 2002, S.44-54

(already mentioned):
David M. Glantz, Stumbling Colossus. The Red Army on the Eve of World War. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence 1998.
Gabriel Gorodetsky, Die große Täuschung. Hitler, Stalin und das Unternehmen „Barbarossa“. Siedler, Berlin 2001.

This is all aside from journal articles, journal book reviews, monographs which discuss the thesis en passant and other academic output.

It just shows you how a supposedly controversial theory can gain widespread credibility when there are no laws in place to punish and imprison people who dare to question the orthodox poodle-historian view.

The 'preventitive war' thesis in its Suvorov variant has essentially zero credibility in all informed academic circles dealing with the Russo-German war of 1941-45 and Soviet-Nazi diplomacy from 1933-41.

The question is whether you want to hear why, or whether you want to continue jumping up and down in your pinstriped monkey suit.

[Kriger]

What does a pin-striped monkey suit have to do with it?

Calvin is asking questions. If you do not want to answer, don't.

[delete]

The 'preventitive war' thesis in its Suvorov variant has essentially zero credibility in all informed academic circles dealing with the Russo-German war of 1941-45 and Soviet-Nazi diplomacy from 1933-41.

The question is whether you want to hear why, or whether you want to continue jumping up and down in your pinstriped monkey suit.

Milhouse is just your common garden variety historian who believes that belittleing and hurling abuse at his oponents brings him glory. :)

[eggheadbanga]

Calvin is asking questions. If you do not want to answer, don't.

Calvin asked a question in another thread which Burrhus also said he wanted to know the answer to, namely why Suvorov's works were out of print in English.

I decided to create a new thread to avoid distraction and to present the info as I know it, neutrally, referring to both sides of the argument, and pointing to authors who have superseded Suvorov on the 'preventitive war' side of the argument.

Calvin's response was not to thank me for going to this small trouble or to thank Panzerfaust Boy for pointing out he could get hold of Suvorov's works via eMule.

No, instead he decided to insinuate that academics who have criticised the preventitive-war thesis do so because they are Jewish.

:deadhorse:

What does a pin-striped monkey suit have to do with it?

His avatar.

[calvin]

No, instead he decided to insinuate that academics who have criticised the preventitive-war thesis do so because they are Jewish

I’m not insinuating it, I’m flat out saying it, in my opinion Gorodetsky has denounced the Icebreaker hypothesis because he is an Israeli Jew. And yes, I am happy that German historians might seek to exculpate Nazi Germany, that way we at least get a balanced debate. Would you like to see them banged up in prison beside German chemists and British historians?

What’s all this about a monkey in pin-stripe pyjamas? My avatar is a photograph of Koffi Annan on his commemorative visit to Auschwitz.

[Burrhus]

The holocaust story/lie is premised on an evil Hitler/3rd Reich/National Socialism and an evil Hitler/3rd Reich/National Socialism is premised on the holocaust story/lie. They are the twin pillars floating in the air of the current jewish propaganda tactic supporting their long-term evolutionary strategy of infiltration and parasitism of other in-groups...anti-nationalism.

That those pillars hang suspended without foundation in the solid ground of historical fact and depend on maintaining the illusion of being grounded in reality requires that both be defended ferociously and tenaciously. If either is shaken, the other will begin tumbling and the deluded gentiles will see the illusiory structure for what it is...a scam.

The thesis of Icebreaker undermines the evil Hitler pillar, threatening the holocaust pillar and thus the pervasive acceptance of anti-nationalism vital to the jewish agenda. Recall that in Germany (at least) it is not only holocaust revisionism that is illegal but also revisionism that would rehabilitate the historical record on Hitler, the 3rd Reich and National Socialism.

The circular logic seen in the two pillars being each other's support is obvious to some of us. When it becomes obvious to many, things will change.

Things are changing.

[cerberus]

calvionThere are a number of serious historians who believe that Stalin was planning to invade Germany and that Hitler simply pre-empted him. The opposition to this theory is being led by an Israeli Jew, surprise, surprise!

To be honest calvin - Stalin's reaction and the preformance of the Red Army did not indicate an Army just about to invade .
Hilter had been looking to the east from as early as July 1940- it was his zone of destiny.
There is nothing to suggest that Stalin was going to invade .

BurhussThe holocaust story/lie is premised on an evil Hitler/3rd Reich/National Socialism and an evil Hitler/3rd Reich/National Socialism is premised on the holocaust story/lie.
This is in itself a propagand image / line .
Was Hitler Evil ?
Do you really need and answer.

[eggheadbanga]

I’m not insinuating it, I’m flat out saying it,

As I thought.

in my opinion Gorodetsky has denounced the Icebreaker hypothesis because he is an Israeli Jew.

And you've read his books have you? You've also read Suvorov and his followers I take it?

You're sure that the only reason that Gorodetsky might have a problem with Suvorov's thesis is his nationality? Absolutely 100% sure?

Perhaps you should ask Gorodetsky himself. Here's his CV, the email address is included.

http://www.tau.ac.il/~russia/cvs/Faculty/gaby.html

And yes, I am happy that German historians might seek to exculpate Nazi Germany, that way we at least get a balanced debate.

Then stop throwing pointless ad hominems around.

Would you like to see them banged up in prison beside German chemists and British historians?

What a fucking stupid question.

What’s all this about a monkey in pin-stripe pyjamas? My avatar is a photograph of Koffi Annan on his commemorative visit to Auschwitz.

And there I was thinking it was a self-portrait.

[Petyr Baelish]

I own a Russian copy of Icebreaker. "Suvorov" (the author obviously adopted the pseudonym out of an exaggerated sense of self-importance) is a horrible writer, and a worse historian. It is no wonder that mainstream historians reject his thesis.

[calvin]

As I thought.

What you thought is that you would dazzle me with a façade of neutrality and then overwhelm me with your prepared responses when I took the bait, but I wasn’t stupid enough to be taken in by your contrived neutrality was I? Tough shit Milhouse!

You're sure that the only reason that Gorodetsky might have a problem with Suvorov's thesis is his nationality? Absolutely 100% sure?

I quite sure that a sufficiently schooled historian can concoct a plausible argument to defend any interpretation of a historical event that suits them, I’m equally sure that Gorodestky has subscribed to his particular interpretation for ethnic reasons.

Then stop throwing pointless ad hominems around

To suggest that an Israeli Jew might suffer from excessive ethnocentrism is not an ad hominem.

What a fucking stupid question

Why so? You’ve already whinged about anti-communists and evil Germans having the temerity to have a unique perspective on the history of WWII, surely censorship is the logical progression from that position? Of course, you are in the position of benefiting from the judicial suppression of the opposition whilst simultaneously pretending that you abhor that suppression.


And there I was thinking it was a self-portrait

Would someone please pick me up and stitch up my sides.

[eggheadbanga]

What you thought is that you would dazzle me with a façade of neutrality and then overwhelm me with your prepared responses when I took the bait, but I wasn’t stupid enough to be taken in by your contrived neutrality was I? Tough shit Milhouse!

There has been some interest in this topic (the preventitive war thesis) before, and so since you raised the topic on another thread I thought it an idea to start to gather some of the resources available for it and answer your question.

Sulla even suggested this as the subject for a formal debate a while back.

It may have escaped your notice but there are Russian-and German-speakers who frequent this forum. Even for those that can't read the languages it ought to be interesting to know that Suvorov's work is all online, for free, in Russian, along with his followers and his critics.

I quite sure that a sufficiently schooled historian can concoct a plausible argument to defend any interpretation of a historical event that suits them, I’m equally sure that Gorodestky has subscribed to his particular interpretation for ethnic reasons.

Without having read the book? Have you thought of offering your psychic powers for sale?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse
Then stop throwing pointless ad hominems around

To suggest that an Israeli Jew might suffer from excessive ethnocentrism is not an ad hominem.

Until you've shown the slightest familiarity with Gorodetsky's work, then it most certainly is ad hominem.

You'd also have to demonstrate that Gorodetsky's views were out of step with those of historians of other nationalities, or were coloured in some uniquely Israeli way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse
What a fucking stupid question

Why so? You’ve already whinged about anti-communists and evil Germans having the temerity to have a unique perspective on the history of WWII,

Where did I say that? All I said was that those who have argued the preventitive-war thesis have either been Russian anti-communists or German right-wingers.

Some might think that both groups had axes to grind against Stalin or in favour of Hitler, which could potentially bias their interpretations and cause them to overlook evidence or even possibly invent it. But that would be ad hominem, unless you actually read their works to confirm this potential bias, and demonstrated that this was so.

surely censorship is the logical progression from that position?

No, it's not. It would be utterly absurd.

Of course, you are in the position of benefiting from the judicial suppression of the opposition whilst simultaneously pretending that you abhor that suppression.

On the contrary, it would benefit me and many others greatly if the last excuse for revisionism, that it is somehow repressed when it can run riot over 95% of the globe, is taken away from its followers and they have to think of something else to drone on about.

[calvin]

Why so? You’ve already whinged about anti-communists and evil Germans having the temerity to have a unique perspective on the history of WWII

Where did I say that? All I said was that those who have argued the preventitive-war thesis have either been Russian anti-communists or German right-wingers

Ehrr! You said it here perhaps?

So you're quite happy that German historians might seek to exculpate Nazi Germany?

Your a priori assumption of guilt is revealed by the use of the word “exculpate”; exculpate from what? Delivering a counter-punch to an aggressor is not a crime.

And we can see from your quote you aren’t saying anything about “right-wing” Germans, you are simply saying Germans. This reveals that you believe that Germans are inclined towards a pro-German interpretation based solely on nationality and ethnicity, which is exactly what I have said about Jews

[Trojan]

What does a pin-striped monkey suit have to do with it?

Calvin is asking questions. If you do not want to answer, don't.

Calvin lacks the integrity to admit that a purported study does not exist (Krege - see my signature).

This is a common Calvin tactic - come out of the gates with what appears to be a legitimate question, then move the goal posts as his question is answered - again and again.

[Kriger]

Calvin lacks the integrity to admit that a purported study does not exist (Krege - see my signature).

This is a common Calvin tactic - come out of the gates with what appears to be a legitimate question, then move the goal posts as his question is answered - again and again.

In the field of research, answered questions lead to more questions.

In the meantime, attempts are being made to avoid flaming and ad hominems as this is a Lyceum forum, not jewology or the Lounge.

Cerberus has asked for all to cooperate.

[Trojan]

In the field of research, answered questions lead to more questions.

In the meantime, attempts are being made to avoid flaming and ad hominems as this is a Lyceum forum, not jewology or the Lounge.

Cerberus has asked for all to cooperate.

Calvin opened with a question as to why Icebreaker was not available, with the clear implication that it was being censored or forcibly removed from public view.

When it was shown to be available on the Internet, he moved the goal posts (and not for the last time).

There is no indication that Calvin has turned a single page of the book, so the suggestion of "In the field of research, answered questions lead to more questions" is clearly misplaced.

The goal posts will move again shortly.

[Kriger]

Calvin opened with a question as to why Icebreaker was not available, with the clear implication that it was being censored or forcibly removed from public view.

When it was shown to be available on the Internet, he moved the goal posts (and not for the last time).

There is no indication that Calvin has turned a single page of the book, so the suggestion of "In the field of research, answered questions lead to more questions" is clearly misplaced.

The goal posts will move again shortly.

It is my understanding that you, Milhouse, and Globus are here to answer questions, albeit biased answers.

If you don't want to answer the questions, don't answer them.

[Trojan]

It is my understanding that you, Milhouse, and Globus are here to answer questions, albeit biased answers.


Each of us is here for his own reasons.


If you don't want to answer the questions, don't answer them.

Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for an answer to the kiloton size nuclear testing performed before Trinity that you described.

[Kriger]

Each of us is here for his own reasons.



Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for an answer to the kiloton size nuclear testing performed before Trinity that you described.

Speaking of continuously moving the goal posts.

Go visit the thread in question. I posted the link a while ago.

[Trojan]

Speaking of continuously moving the goal posts.

Go visit the thread in question. I posted the link a while ago.

That goal post has remained the same, and either I'm blind or the timeline does not speak of kiliton size nuclear tests prior to Trinity.

Feel free to cut and paste the text and I'll admit I'm wrong.

[Kriger]

That goal post has remained the same, and either I'm blind or the timeline does not speak of kiliton size nuclear tests prior to Trinity.

Feel free to cut and paste the text and I'll admit I'm wrong.

Post this in the proper thread, and I might take time to explain the obvious.

I don't use cut and paste. I allow the reader to read for themselves the sources I cite.

It only takes one click, and the articles are no longer than a cut and paste routine.

[eggheadbanga]

Ehrr! You said it here perhaps?

I said it here for certain, in the same post:

And they are all anti-communists (Russia) or right-wing (Germany).

Questions?

Your a priori assumption of guilt is revealed by the use of the word “exculpate”; exculpate from what? Delivering a counter-punch to an aggressor is not a crime.

That's why Stalin would have been justified in counter-punching Hitler in June 1941, because Hitler ordered the invasion of the Soviet Union in December 1940, a whole six months earlier, after a warning order in July 1940, nearly 1 year earlier. These facts are not even vaguely in dispute by historians.

And we can see from your quote you aren’t saying anything about “right-wing” Germans, you are simply saying Germans.

Muahaha.

This reveals that you believe that Germans are inclined towards a pro-German interpretation based solely on nationality and ethnicity, which is exactly what I have said about Jews

No, it shows up your assess-by-nationality method of criticism as nonsensical. You walked right into the trap. Even the vaguest hint that I might think that Germans are "inclined towards a pro-German interpretation" - forgetting that there was a QUESTION MARK there - and you throw your rattle out of the pram.

Now, can you ditch the ad hominem attacks on historians and discuss the subject? This is the third time I've asked.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I’m not insinuating it, I’m flat out saying it


Have you taken the opportunity to investigate the situation in pre-war USSR? Have you read about the early actions of Babarossa?

[calvin]

Are you capable of taking a step back and viewing the bigger picture? Whatever Stalin’s immediate military aims were communism was an internationalist creed which had already threatened to infect Germany, Italy and Spain. Hitler had had enough and decided to slay the dragon in its lair. If it weren’t for Hitler we would all be talking Russian.

Milhouse

Do you really think that anyone here believes that your gaffe was a carefully prepared trap? Do me a favour! I suppose if you’ve only got a straw, that’s what you have to grab for.

[Trojan]

If it weren’t for Hitler we would all be talking German.



Should that read 'Russian'?

[calvin]

When it was shown to be available on the Internet, he moved the goal posts (and not for the last time)

Okay Trojan, you get me a copy of Icbreaker, in English, for $100 or under and I'll buy it from you for $150.

[calvin]

Yes it should read Russian, you beat me to the edit; point to Trojan, now about that copy of Icebreaker.........

[eggheadbanga]

I see Calvin has finally deigned to discuss the subject, sort of. Hurrah!

Are you capable of taking a step back and viewing the bigger picture? Whatever Stalin’s immediate military aims were communism was an internationalist creed which had already threatened to infect Germany, Italy and Spain. Hitler had had enough and decided to slay the dragon in its lair.

The bigger picture does not conform to your caricature.

In the 1920s, Stalin's policy was very firmly 'socialism in one country', which earned him the scorn of Trotsky who instead clung to his theory of permanent revolution, which meant expanding the Bolshevik revolution as much as possible.

This wasn't actually feasible after 1921 because all hints of a communist revolution had been crushed in Hungary and Germany, and because Poland stopped the Soviets at the gates of Warsaw before driving them back.

In the later 1920s, there was a 'war scare' in the Soviet Union when the communist leadership were convinced they were about to be attacked by 'capitalist' powers. Only after then did Stalin begin a military build up, in 1931 he observed that the USSR had to catch up with the west in 10 years 'or they will crush us'. This was defensive language.

The rise of Hitler greatly alarmed the Soviets. They even predicted that there could be war as early as March 1933. Someone in Moscow had obviously read Mein Kampf.

Historians have pointed out that the 1937 Terror was in many ways a prophylactic purge to rid the USSR of all potential traitors in the event of a war. Over half the victims were 'border' or diaspora nationalities: Poles, Finns, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Germans, Iranians, Koreans. This actually backfired because the Terror increased the number willing to collaborate with the Nazis when they eventually invaded.

In 1937, Stalin gutted the high command of the Red Army and the Navy. The results were shown rather spectacularly in 1939-40 when he tried to invade Finland to secure a greater defensive zone to protect Leningrad. The Red Army performed disastrously.

This was compounded by the shock of the German victory in the West in May 1940. Stalin's plan was very much to play off the rival western powers against Germany, watch them exhaust themselves and see what happened. The Blitzkrieg changed everything. Most of all it meant that the Red Army's mechanised forces had to be reorganised, and these were still in the throes of massive reorganisations when the Germans finally attacked.

The Red Army was in no condition to take on Germany in the summer of 1941.

If it weren’t for Hitler we would all be talking German.

You mean Russian. The answer is if it weren't for Hitler, Eastern Europe would not have endured 45 years of communist rule.

[eggheadbanga]

Yes it should read Russian, you beat me to the edit; point to Trojan, now about that copy of Icebreaker.........

Panzerfaust Boy suggested looking on eMule.

Or you could always take a Russian course :D

[Trojan]

Yes it should read Russian, you beat me to the edit; point to Trojan, now about that copy of Icebreaker.........

Try inter library loan, this took me about three minutes to find:

---------------------------------

http://catalog.library.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=5&ti=1,5&Search%5FArg=Suvorov&Search%5FCode=NAME%40&CNT=50&PID=t@oJwHoHwX_Ir\OHnHoJr@oJm<<<&SEQ=20070106160523&SID=2

Author/Name: Suvorov, Viktor.
Uniform title: [Ledokol. English]
Title: Ice-breaker : who started the Second World War? / Victor Suvorov ; translated by Thomas B. Beattie.
Published/distributed: London : Hamish Hamilton, 1990.
Physical description: xvii, 364 p., [8] p. of plates : ill., maps, ports. ; 24 cm.
Subject(s): World War, 1939-1945 --Soviet Union.
Strategy --Political aspects --Soviet Union --History --20th century.
ISBN: 0241126223
LC control number: gb 90021995
Record ID: 3139721
Collection: UCLA Libraries and Collections



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Location: YRL
Call Number: D743 .S7513 1990
Status: Not Checked Out
Number of Items: 1

[Sulla the Dictator]

Are you capable of taking a step back and viewing the bigger picture? Whatever Stalin’s immediate military aims were communism was an internationalist creed which had already threatened to infect Germany, Italy and Spain.


Ummmm....where is this? Stalin BETRAYED the Spanish Communists, gutted his own Army, undermined the German communist movement, and was in fact selling weapons to the KMT instead of the Chinese Communist party.

Lets look at the big picture. Don't you find a German invasion of the USSR interesting in light of Hitler's views on German living space? Don't you find the absence of Russia in German maps of their intended post-war Europe to be something we should consider?

[cerberus]

calvin
Hitler had had enough and decided to slay the dragon in its lair. If it weren’t for Hitler we would all be talking Russian.

Because of Hitler Russian tanks stopped their engines on the east bank of the River Elbe.
Stalin was heard to say that "Peter the Great got as far as Paris".

Milhouse has said that the Red Army was in no condition to take on the Wehrmacht in the Summer of 1941- likewise the Wehrmacht was in no condition to take on a country the size of Russia - it was just too much - "Mission Impossible" - especially when the end game was some vague and illdefined line east of Moscow in the Urals running down to the Volga in the South and the Whuite Sea in the North.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Milhouse has said that the Red Army was in no condition to take on the Wehrmacht in the Summer of 1941- likewise the Wehrmacht was in no condition to take on a country the size of Russia - it was just too much - "Mission Impossible" - especially when the end game was some vague and illdefined line east of Moscow in the Urals running down to the Volga in the South and the Whuite Sea in the North.

Moreover, Stalin was at his LOWEST level of safety since 1933 in the weeks following Barbarossa. Its unlikely he would have survived too long if he had managed to botch ANOTHER offensive operation, this time against the Germans.