Viktor Suvorov about Jukov

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
Actually, the book (first part of a trilogy) has been written in 2006, but translated in Romania just "recently", under the name "Umbra victoriei".
Shadow of Victory
Umbra victoriei
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?

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?

Whoops! You mean GRU=DGSP?
It's not quite fair to compare the mumbo-jumbo of Corutz with the - should I say "respected"? or perhaps "criticized"? or somewhat obscured, unfortunately - work of a special troops spy?

Bubulii sunt de vina! Si marea constipatie... aaa, conspiratie bubula...

This post has been edited by Agarici on June 01, 2013 04:23 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...

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.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on June 12, 2013 09:07 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).

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

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.

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.

A 9 or a 10? You mean you don't know for sure when you got a TEN?
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.

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.

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...

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.

...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...