Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
WorldWar2.ro Forum > Reviews & Bookstore > Viktor Suvorov about Jukov


Posted by: MMM June 01, 2013 11:41 am
It seems that the ever-ready to write Rezun / Suvorov has acquired another "target" for his relentless writings -or, perhaps, the man needs a new car or something smile.gif
Actually, the book (first part of a trilogy) has been written in 2006, but translated in Romania just "recently", under the name "Umbra victoriei".
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Victory-Suvorov-Rezun-V-B/product-reviews/9666966425
http://www.polirom.ro/catalog/carte/umbra-victoriei-4936/
Of course, this is NOT advertising...
I am wondering, however, how much truth is in the book: to summarize it, Jukov wasn't much more than a bully, thief and incompetent military-man, way less the artisan of the victory. There are arguments to support this theory...
Has anyone read it?

Posted by: Imperialist June 01, 2013 11:48 am
Personally I find it a bit disconcerting that a respected publishing house like Polirom has published so many Suvorov books. Do they publish Corut too? smile.gif

Posted by: MMM June 01, 2013 02:07 pm
Whoops! You mean GRU=DGSP?
It's not quite fair to compare the mumbo-jumbo of Corutz tongue.gif with the - should I say "respected"? or perhaps "criticized"? or somewhat obscured, unfortunately - work of a special troops spy?

Posted by: Agarici June 01, 2013 04:21 pm
Bubulii sunt de vina! Si marea constipatie... aaa, conspiratie bubula... biggrin.gif

Posted by: MMM June 01, 2013 04:45 pm
How can you say that? Next you'll say there was no "Holy Mountain" or that Dacians (we all know "ducks came from the trucks", don't we?) weren't the ancestors of the Romans... How could you?!
Now really, what this Suvorov dude says seems pretty legit, in many aspects. It is clear that:
1. The Red Army had way more tanks and planes than the invading forces (Wehrmacht plus others)
2. Those tanks and planes were more technically advanced than the Germans' own stuff.
3. There are a lot of lies and unexplained things in the "usual" history of WW2...

Posted by: Imperialist June 12, 2013 09:03 pm
Suvorov's theory/book(s) is problematic and open to a lot of criticism.

At any rate his books are not part of the historiographical "mainstream". And that's why I'm puzzled that Polirom publishes so many of them. Because they usually have nice collections of academically-top-notch mainstream books on international relations, history, political science. They usually don't promote "exotic" theories and authors. Publishing Suvorov on such a scale might give people the impression that his theory is perfectly academic. I've even seen his books part of the syllabus at a faculty in Bucharest. And they were not included as "let's debate this theory" or "in other developments, here's a different take on these events". No, they were taken as truth.

Posted by: MMM June 13, 2013 04:04 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ June 13, 2013 12:03 am)
Suvorov's theory/book(s) is problematic and open to a lot of criticism.

At any rate his books are not part of the historiographical "mainstream". And that's why I'm puzzled that Polirom publishes so many of them. Because they usually have nice collections of academically-top-notch mainstream books on international relations, history, political science. They usually don't promote "exotic" theories and authors. Publishing Suvorov on such a scale might give people the impression that his theory is perfectly academic. I've even seen his books part of the syllabus at a faculty in Bucharest. And they were not included as "let's debate this theory" or "in other developments, here's a different take on these events". No, they were taken as truth.

Come again?! Suvorov is taken as "truth" by Cioroianu&Co.? I suppose you're talking about the Faculty of History...

Posted by: Imperialist June 13, 2013 08:59 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ June 13, 2013 04:04 pm)

Come again?! Suvorov is taken as "truth" by Cioroianu&Co.? I suppose you're talking about the Faculty of History...

No, I'm talking about the Faculty of Political Science (and Mr.Armand Gosu). smile.gif

Posted by: MMM June 14, 2013 07:00 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ June 13, 2013 11:59 pm)
QUOTE (MMM @ June 13, 2013 04:04 pm)

Come again?! Suvorov is taken as "truth" by Cioroianu&Co.? I suppose you're talking about the Faculty of History...

No, I'm talking about the Faculty of Political Science (and Mr.Armand Gosu). smile.gif

Mr.Armand Gosu is rumored to be "another Soros tool"...
However, this proves the theory according to which the "serious historians" just tend to ignore Suvorov.

Posted by: Imperialist June 14, 2013 09:39 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ June 14, 2013 07:00 am)
Mr.Armand Gosu is rumored to be "another Soros tool"...
However, this proves the theory according to which the "serious historians" just tend to ignore Suvorov.

I don't know about that. Could be. As a professor he was ok. I got a 9 or 10 at his class. With the exception of the Suvorov thing I hold nothing against him. biggrin.gif

Posted by: MMM June 15, 2013 05:47 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ June 15, 2013 12:39 am)
QUOTE (MMM @ June 14, 2013 07:00 am)
Mr.Armand Gosu is rumored to be "another Soros tool"...
However, this proves the theory according to which the "serious historians" just tend to ignore Suvorov.

I don't know about that. Could be. As a professor he was ok. I got a 9 or 10 at his class. With the exception of the Suvorov thing I hold nothing against him. biggrin.gif

ohmy.gif A 9 or a 10? You mean you don't know for sure when you got a TEN? ohmy.gif
Back on topic: so then, what IS your problem with Rezun? Perhaps a separate topic would be fine...

Posted by: Imperialist June 16, 2013 12:41 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ June 15, 2013 05:47 pm)
ohmy.gif A 9 or a 10? You mean you don't know for sure when you got a TEN? ohmy.gif
Back on topic: so then, what IS your problem with Rezun? Perhaps a separate topic would be fine...

Taking a 9 or 10 wasn't so rare that I'd remember exactly over the years. biggrin.gif

I think there is already a big thread on Suvorov's theories in another section of the forum. My problem was not with Suvorov per se and with his theory, although I disagree with it, I just wanted to point out my surprise seeing Polirom publishing so many of his books.

Posted by: MMM June 16, 2013 08:04 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ June 16, 2013 03:41 pm)
I just wanted to point out my surprise seeing Polirom publishing so many of his books.

Well, you know, perhaps the "public demand" has had something to do with it. Since the first editions of "Icebreaker" (1995, IIRC), there have been some other editions (quite a couple of them) so they keep up with the public's desires", I guess...

Posted by: Taz1 June 18, 2013 09:57 am
If the public demand such books it will be publicated again and again. Some ideas presented in the book regarding Jukov are corect others exagerations. Jukov was a good general but not the genius presented by the comunist propaganda. Some of his trademark tactic were no so efective agains germans. He was nicknamed ,, the butcher general " by his soilders a surname that tells everything for his atitude regarding his men.

Posted by: MMM June 18, 2013 05:46 pm
QUOTE (Taz1 @ June 18, 2013 12:57 pm)
He was nicknamed ,, the butcher general " by his soilders a surname that tells everything for his atitude regarding his men.

...as opposed to which Soviet general? Somehow that's the business of a general (or a planner): to send others to their deaths for Vaterland / Motherland, whatever...
The problem with Jukov is indeed the fact that his so-called "Memories and reflections" are so full of crap! I've read them in my college years and I was so outraged by many of these toilet-paper ideas that, after talking to some Moldovan students in my year, they told me to read Suvorov - and I did! That was in 1997... and since then I've learned only more questions than answers...

Posted by: guina June 20, 2013 11:37 am
MMM, which of the 11 editions did you read,because they are quite diferent ?

Posted by: MMM June 20, 2013 05:51 pm
QUOTE (guina @ June 20, 2013 02:37 pm)
MMM, which of the 11 editions did you read,because they are quite diferent ?

Well, now I know that, but back then I didn't!
Let me check what is available in the online database - 16 years ago there were only charts... the edition translated in Ro. in 1970... whichever one was that... sad.gif

Posted by: Florin June 22, 2013 05:49 am
Zhukov / Jukov was lucky to be a general of a huge country.
A huge country (Soviet Union, China, The United States) can afford to swallow rows of defeats and strings of disaster, and still stay afloat.
That's a luxury a small country cannot afford.

Posted by: MMM June 22, 2013 08:38 am
QUOTE (Florin @ June 22, 2013 08:49 am)
Zhukov / Jukov was lucky to be a general of a huge country.
A huge country (Soviet Union, China, The United States) can afford to swallow rows of defeats and strings of disaster, and still stay afloat.
That's a luxury a small country cannot afford.

However, it is interesting that he didn't "pay" for the defeats... unlike many other generals in the Red Army (or Wehrmacht, as well). He seems to have been favoured by Stalin, for what reason we do NOT know!

Posted by: dragos June 22, 2013 11:26 am
Considering the "achievements" of other generals, why wouldn't Stalin be confident in Jukov ?

Posted by: MMM June 22, 2013 03:07 pm
Because he was Chief of the General Staff at the moment of the German invasion? Any way we put it - either he was planning defense and failed, either he was planning tp attack and was "outrunned", he was one of the main factors of decision, therefore he was liable to be "charged".

Posted by: Florin June 24, 2013 04:19 am
QUOTE (dragos @ June 22, 2013 06:26 am)
Considering the "achievements" of other generals, why wouldn't Stalin be confident in Jukov ?

After the success of Operation Bagration beyond the wildest hopes of Stavka, Konstantin Rokossovsky also got in the good graces of Stalin, and was accepted into his inner circle. From that moment, Rokossovsky was one of the 2 generals addressed by Stalin with their first name. (Jukov was not the other one ...)
Before of that, Rokossovsky was himself a political prisoner.

Posted by: MMM June 24, 2013 03:05 pm
Yes, that is known - from Suvorov and before that. However, Bagration came in 1944, whereas Jukov's "blunders" were in 1941 and 1942. Did Stalin really need Jukov that much?

Posted by: PaulC August 12, 2013 06:40 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ June 12, 2013 11:03 pm)
Suvorov's theory/book(s) is problematic and open to a lot of criticism.

At any rate his books are not part of the historiographical "mainstream". And that's why I'm puzzled that Polirom publishes so many of them. Because they usually have nice collections of academically-top-notch mainstream books on international relations, history, political science. They usually don't promote "exotic" theories and authors. Publishing Suvorov on such a scale might give people the impression that his theory is perfectly academic. I've even seen his books part of the syllabus at a faculty in Bucharest. And they were not included as "let's debate this theory" or "in other developments, here's a different take on these events". No, they were taken as truth.

In all the academic books on ww2 published in the west you will not find as much valuable information as what Suvorov published in a dozen books. Fortunately, we're still young enough to live the day the history books will be overwritten.

In the light of the evidence unearthed in the past 20 years and the public admission by Soviet/Russian generals about the "miscalculation" of June 1941, only a bonehead could claim the old version still holds. There is only one version which, as a scientific theory, is strengthened by new discoveries, unlike the old mantra which is continuously weakened.

And you know who will overturn it ? Russian amateur historians. What's being published now by authors like Solonin will blow away the crap the world has been taught for the last 60 years. Suvorov did a small crack in the dam and water is pouring furiously out. It's only a matter of time before the dam will collapse.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)