lunedì 14 aprile 2014

Ukraine crisis...


The democratically elected government of Ukraine (corrupted for sure) was forced out of power by Ukrainian pro-Western protesters using the tactics, that now the Ukrainian pro-Russian protesters are using to refuse to subordinate to the interim government in Kiev. We helped the pro-Western protesters, and now Russia helps the pro-Russian protesters. These are the raw facts, no need for pro or anti coloring of them.  Sure, our media tries hard to have us believe otherwise, but as always, it is best to look at the facts, and at what is NOT being discussed, by the same media.

Ukraine's majority population and industry is in the East, and its major produce goes to Russia, not the EU! The EU offered Ukraine the usual deal: 1) open your market to us, 2) close down your industry and as a return one day you may get Visa-free entrance to the EU and a pre-accession deal.
We offered that to a country, which is in deep crisis, and basically lives off Russian credits and gas sponsorship. We could offer Ukraine the IMF's wonderful austerity measures which have done "miracles" in the poorest and newer EU member states, and most recently in Greece (mass unemployment, lowering standard of living, increase in suicides, etc.). 

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of  ex-president Yanukovych. On one hand he had to choose between destroying Ukraine's industry, that employs thousands of Ukrainians from the East (those who elected him), and thus cause a severe supply problem to his biggest trade partner and neighbor Russia, which also happens to be the hand which feeds him and his country, and the motherland of his electorate. On the other hand he had more support from Russia, credits gas, and continuous open market for the existing industry.   Well, it is no wonder that he chose Russia, despite the fact that apparently 70% of all government contracts in his time, went to companies belonging to his son (according to World Bank source). Corruption aside, this guy really did not have a choice! And this, of course, is not discussed in our media.

The minority of Ukrainians from the western parts -- less developed and in a more economically difficult situation -- believe that the EU will be the solution to their problems, and not without our help, went out to protest against Yanukovych's choice. This all resulted in the Maiden events which were surrounded by violence on both sides, let's not forget the Ukrainian ex-KGB agents, pulling individuals from the protesters, torturing them, humiliating them, and probably murdering some of them. As a result of the violent shooting of protesters and police, the government collapsed, and Yanukovych left to Russia.

Now let's put ourselves in the shoes of Putin, or rather Kremlin, as Putin is not a single dictator as many are trying to portrait him.  People who do that, have absolutely no clue of how totalitarian regime functions (as an experiment, ask any of them to explain how the Soviet Union functioned, and they'll remain quite... yet they will explain in detail how democracy functions in the US, or the different models in Europe). So, Kremlin, which has done endless concessions to Ukraine -- a classic example of a client who constantly fails to pay -- and had just signed a long-term agreement with that government and president finds itself cheated by a bunch of protesters who with OUR help (understand "OUR" as ENEMY, as Kremlin sees it) had seized power in Kiev. 

From here on come into account the strategic interests of both Russia and the West. Russia sees NATO's advance towards its borders as aggression, and a pro-western government in Kiev could easily undertake a pro-NATO policy, which neither Russia, nor the majority of the Ukrainian population desire!  And since what the people desire has never been the utmost concern of any government in any system, Russia was practically forced to react by our little orange revolution 2 scenario. And here comes into play what Ukraine really is. It in effect is a political post-Soviet creation of a state. Half of its population and territories are basically Russian and are populated with ethnic Russians, or pro-Russian Ukrainians. Crimea was the first move, as it is strategically important to the Russian Black Sea fleet and military history, but also because it has been used by Ukraine to extort billions in gas reductions fro Russia! So in a way, Russia was paying for its own base on its own territory among its own people, only because a famous communist crook and a butcher of Ukraine called N. Khrushchev, gave it away to the Ukrainian SSR back in 1954 against the then existing constitution. This act was forced on Russian president Boris Yeltsin back in 1994, when Russia was practically ruled by Washington, as means to collect the remaining Soviet nuclear arsenal and keep it all in the Russian Federation, as means to prevent parts of it to leak to terrorist organizations or "states". Strategically speaking, this was a positive move for Russia, as today Ukraine is an open house, which anyone having a real army can invade. And in this case, this is the Russian Federation. 

Ukrainian army is a joke, (and please Ukrainian nationalists, do not take this personally, it is a fact, and we all see it right now before our own eyes). A conscript army, which means half of it is made up from Russian or pro-Russian soldiers and officers, which has almost no combat experience, leave a brigade or two,which have been used in NATO hot spot missions, and is poorly fed, with almost no resources to train, but most of all, without a will to fight its own people! Yes, that's right! Most Ukrainians have relatives in Russia, or in the Eastern parts  of Ukraine. They don't want to shot at them, and this is why they do not follow the orders from the interim government in Kiev, that is why they cannot achieve their "anti-terrorist" operations in reality, the army and police is refusing to fight against what they see as their own people, with demands they know too well are just and are so! 

And sure, the Russian military intelligence is helping and has sent operatives to organize the  Russian and pro-Russian citizens in Ukraine, but they won't achieve nothing had not the local people want that! The people are in support of separation, and their demand is not only based on ethnic or "fascist" propaganda spread by Moscow, it is very much based on simple economics calculations:  as part of Russia, we get paid better, and we get stability, which is not the case as being part of Ukraine for the past 23 years! The language ban law is only a small but reassuring element for their support for separation from Kiev!

Why are all these police stations falling one after another in those eastern Ukrainian towns? Because most of the officers either support the cause, or understand that the locals being the majority are for it and shooting won't change anything. So they just go and surrender the building and weapons to the locals and their GRU helping agents. Anyone who believes that the protests in the eastern parts were done by Russian sent agents, must watch youtube videos of them. Whole towns, older, younger, whole families protesting and waving Russian flags and supporting the armed men in charge of the ex-Ukrainian police r administrative buildings. And this is exactly what we are not being told by our media, because we may then say, well, if the majority wants Russia, let them have a referendum! And this was exactly what they were protesting for weeks ago, and what Russia was asking the interim government to do, but since it responded with "No" people said, the hell with Kiev and started take control of their own lives, and sure with the support of Russia, no doubt about that! 

So, before anyone say that Ukraine is sovereign country, hence the handful of the western supported interim government should call the shots, please do not forget that it cannot call the shots, because it does not have the legitimacy with the majority of the Ukrainian citizens! This is the bare fact, and if a future referendum is held, I would be very surprised to find that most Ukrainians want us and NATO. Perhaps, few months ago, they may have wanted to stay within Ukraine, and not join Russia, but after the recent political unrest, that aspiration has long changed.





domenica 23 marzo 2014

Russia, Ukraine, Crimea and the West: Making sense of it all!

Why?

The answer was provided by Russian president Putin in his address on 18 March 2014, just before the treaty for joining Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation was signed. 
1. Crimea is historically Russian and is indispensable part of Russia. Sevastopol is the birth city and pride of the Russian Black Sea fleet;
2. It was administratively transfered to Ukraine by Kruschev in 1954, against the legal and constitutional norms active in the Soviet Union then;
3. Russia was too weak to stand up for its own interests in the early 1990s;
4. Despite all that, Russia respected Ukraine's sovereignty until the upper hand within Ukraine was taken by what Russia perceives as Ukrainian nationalists otherwise called "banderovcii." (from Stepan Andreevich Bandera infamous Ukrainian nationalist).
5. It is impossible to turn Russia's Black Sea fleet pride city into a NATO base.

Legal issues?

This will be an utterly useless discussion. One must be a real romantic to believe that international relations in the 21st Century have changed and are thus a subject to international law. Reality has shown time and time again that this is not the case and that the stronger side gets what it wants. Whether we take Russia, USA, France, Britain, among others as an example, we will inevitably have enough recent examples demonstrating how each has disregarded international law and acted on its own will. What seems to be the case, however, is that during such power conflict the loosing side is the one blaming the winning side of disregard of international law. Rewind to 1999 Kosovo crisis, for example, and you will witness the same rhetoric used by Russia then, is used by the West today.  


Economic Sanctions?

The simple but unavoidable point is: Russia has integrated into the world economy today, which means that to hurt Russia's economy would mean to hurt ours too. Period! 
Those talking and/or writing about cutting Russian gas and oil supply should know that Europe does not depend on Russian gas or oil! It can successfully meet these needs from alternative suppliers. This was discovered few years ago, when Putin shut off the gas supply for two weeks, and it was a surprise for the Western based industry as well, that they could do without the Russian supply! But can Ukraine do without it? Europe does not want to change Russian supplies with alternative ones, simply because the Russian gas and oil are just as lucrative to business in Europe as they are to business in Russia! 

The current Russian political system, no matter how one calls it, has taken into account one fundamental element and it sticks to it: it is stable for business! Big corporations know that and work in and with Russia. Some, who have been used for back-door anti-Kremlin political activities in Russia, have of course suffered, but those who concentrate on business only are doing fine. Hence pulling the entire western business interests from Russia is basically impossible, since they are too great to be wasted on some silly plan to bring Russia down to its knees economically again. Although a bit off topic, this is the place to point out that the economic collapse of the Soviet Union was a result of its own isolation, incapable economic model, and last but not least a fully conscious decision by those in power in the USSR to do so! Bringing Russia to the same state today is impossible, because its economy is too important because by now it is a vital part of the world economy, but also because the current people in power (like them or not) have no desire to collapse the country again, on the contrary, as we have seen, they are on course to restore its Soviet era status.

And to illustrate this point, think how would Germany feel when most of its car producers will suffer considerable (and to some /ie. BMW/ life-threatening) sale falls if Russian market was to close down. This would include the closure of numerous factories located there as well, the same goes for the French Renault btw, among many other businesses.  Trillions in projects have been invested in Russia and simply canceling them all and isolating Russia from the rest of the world is by now impossible! Even if hypothetically Europe cuts gas and oil supply from Russia, (that would mean a total collapse for Ukraine and its inevitable fall into Russian hands again) guess who will start importing and paying for these supplies... China of course!

It is absolutely astonishing that people assume that those policy makers in Kremlin standing behind the recent policies have not foreseen and calculated  the possible economic sanctions that the West may impose. Have they been as dire to Russian economy as so many in the west today wish they could be, Russia would not have done what it did!

The EU

I would argue that this crisis had a terrible effect to the EU's image and legitimacy, but I doubt it would be a waking up call for the union, unfortunately. It fell in a ridiculous situation: its supposed partner the United States played its own game in Ukraine over the EU's efforts to defuse the situation, and as it turned out the US literally does not give a "f**k" about the EU! By saying what she did, Victoria Nuland with her official standing, only provided legitimization of Moscow's suspicions, and she did so publicly, no matter how this talk was obtained! Furthermore, the Estonian foreign minister's exposed talk about the evidence suggesting that snipers' shooting at the protesters in Kiev could have actually been a hired hand by the opposition and not the Ukrainian militia put the EU into an even suspicious situation, standing between Kiev and Moscow claiming it is trying to defuse the situation. 

Russia

If we clear this event from all details, we would inevitably reach the most fundamental conclusion: Russia stood up again! This time, not only rhetorically, but with carefully designed military actions. It did state officially so too, "They constantly are trying to corner us, because we have an independent position, because we stand up for it, because we call things with their real names, and because we do not dissemble. But everything has its limits, and in the case with Ukraine, our western partners crossed the line, they behaved rudely, irresponsibly and unprofessionally. They knew well that in Ukraine and in Crimea live millions of Russian people. How lost must one's political sense of measure be, to not foresee all repercussions form one's actions? Russia turned up at a frontier from which it can no longer retreat... Today hysterics need to stop, give up Cold War rhetoric and recognize the obvious thing: Russia is an independent and active participant in the international life, which, just like other states, has national interests that need to be considered and respected." (Putin's address on 18 March 2014, c.28.00-30.45 min) 

USA

The above statement by Putin is a hard one for the US to swallow. It was going to be perfectly fine for the US, had not Russia acted the way it did. But this precedent sets a major change in the world power balance. Russia has resurrected and now its interests need to be respected and accounted for when planning the global policy in DC. Many are quick to shift back to the Cold War era, not realizing that things today are very different. Russia in not the self-isolated, want to conquer the whole world communist Soviet Union from the past. It is a modern country, true with its own problems, which hopefully, for the people living there, will be resolved with time, that has fully integrated itself into the world economy, has a stable economic growth, income and know how, but most of all, elite that wants Russia to prosper, unlike the old Soviet era criminals, who massacred more of their own citizens than they managed to kill others'. This will be a big problem for DC, as their seemingly unchallenged power is now actually being challenged, not by nuclear destruction, but by modern politicians, calling them "partners" which ironically puts the US today in the old USSR shoes: threatening serious repercussions! 

Germany

In his address, Putin also mentioned in particular the German people. He reminded them how in 1990 Russia respected their will to re-unite, and that it was now their  turn to do so for Russia. This is a particularly interesting example, which to me, also echoed as a warning to Germany, and their approach to Russia from now on. 

Why do I take the time?

From what I have read in our own western media, it seems they have lost themselves (again) in a rhetoric repetition mode, about how Russia disrespected the treaty of 1994, how president Obama does not act hard enough etc. Basically how wrong Russia is, and how poor Ukraine has been violated. Although some of these claims are correct, in no way are they the only ones, or the decisive ones, which let to this crisis and the outcome of it! What happens is a further hatred rhetoric being spread against Russia, not a single word about our own active involvement into bringing this crisis to the state it reached, and a basic lack of knowledge of the general public of what happened and why! I thought presenting Russia's point of view will to an extend shed more light over this whole issue. Generally, the lack of knowledge of the real world history, especially the one of the past 100 years or so, by the general public, especially in the west, is one of the major contributing factors to their lack of understanding of why Russia behaves the way it does today. 

giovedì 12 dicembre 2013

In Response to those comparing Kim Jong Un to Stalin for executing his aunt's husband!


To all of you who compare the N Korean leader to Stalin... you first need to learn who Stalin was, and why he did the things he did! The fairy-tales you've been fed by popular western historians (i.e. that Stalin was paranoid and scared ) is nothing more than a cheap repetition of the Khrushchev era Kremlin invented propaganda. Of course you have no way of knowing this, since you probably never read any of the Soviet era originals in Russian language.

I'll try to be as short as possible.

The Bolsheviks were composed of 2 different gangs, those of Lenin and those of Trotsky (the same one who with an official US passport and substantial capitals left the US for Russia in 1917 to start up the civil war there). The Red Army was also soon divided into two main parts: the 1st horse army and the red cossacks. The 1st horse army was the one under the command of the Lenin's gang (which included Stalin, Voroshilov etc.), the red cossacks were Trotsky's part. Once the civil war was over and Stalin had gained the upper hand in the party, naturally all the top positions were distributed among the people belonging to 1st horse army chain of command, and the secondary positions were given to Trotsky's people. They protested ever since and until Stalin strengthened his power enough to take care of them during the 1937-38 great purge. Not because he was afraid or paranoid from them, but because he was preparing to invade most of the world, and the last thing he needed were people in top positions who would revolt in the crucial moments of the war. 


If you read the list of accusations of those, and then study their biographies closely, you will inevitably discover that the accusations were matched precisely for each one of them, and that they really were guilty of them. Most of those purged were NKVD (KGB) officers, some of them with hands so bloody that makes Hitler and his gang of brown socialist look like cheap copy cats (which they were in fact, because the NKVD signed a treaty with Gestapo in the mid 30s to provide them with the know-how on building and running concentration camps etc. extras later used by them in the Holocaust). So, if Stalin should be congratulated on something he has done, that should be for the great purge, since he purged some of the bloodiest mass murderers in human history, hitherto! 

None of this information or analysis has been provided by the vast majority of both western and eastern historians, for different reasons, but nevertheless, before ASSUMING Stalin was this, that or the other, ask yourself a question: what do I know about the Soviet Union? Can I describe how it actually worked, as I could the US, for example? 



So, if we are to draw a parallel between Stalin and the new kid in N Korea, then it should be in the lines that his aunt's husband was actually guilty as charged. The mare fact that we in the west pay so much attention to him, is because he probably was working for us, or our interests, otherwise the media would not keep us busy with his life, deeds, and execution. 

Last but not least, if anyone is interested in the real history of the Soviet Union, I strongly suggest you read Viktor Suvorov as a start! I hope this will help some of you understand that perhaps things were not as we were all told by the mass literature and the well-accepted but still UNTRUE assumptions they feed us every day! 

giovedì 13 giugno 2013

20th Century Russian History for Dummies

Tsar Nicholas II was never "deposed" by anyone, let alone the Bolsheviks! He gave up his throne in favor of his brother, under the pressure of few traitors, who held his family hostage. The traitors funded by the Jacob Schiff, and led by Alexander Kerensky, began an intentional rapid disintegration of the empire and its institutions, and prepared the ground for the second group of professional terrorists Lenin, Trotsky, Svredlov and Co. then kindly handed them the power in October (what is wrongly referred to as the "Bolshevik" or "October" revolution) and then Kerensky was shipped out of the country and finally arrived in the US, where he was branded a great democrat. Meanwhile, Schiff's professionals began the second phase of the operation and plunged the country into a civil war.

During the war, Lenin and Co. realized that their only chance of survival was to fight to the end and hold the power in the country, as no one was ever going to leave them alive after what they have done. With the support of Schiff's money, Chinese mercenaries, German POWs, US, UK and others' generous help, the Bolsheviks emerged the winners after turning the ex-empire into a sea of blood and theater of human atrocities, that make the Holocaust look like an ant next to an elephant!

Once the civil war was won, the original division between Lenin's gang and Trotsky's gang emerged again, and after Stalin (from Lenin's gang) won the power in 1924, Trotsky and his gang were given secondary positions in power, and they resented this until the day they died, most of them during, what is now called, the Great Purge of 1937-1938, when Stalin got rid off the remains of Trotsky's gang en masse, whom he could not fully trust, and correctly so. Most of them were the chief executors of millions of people, before, during and after the civil war in Russia, so in a way they got what they deserved. 

Ever since 1924 Stalin pushed the preparation for the further execution of the World Revolution, which based on the lessons learnt from the last war, foresaw some serious strategy changes. Trotsky's classic "permanent revolution" strategy was dumped, after failing to bring successful results, especially during Red Army’s Polish campaign. The new strategy envisioned rebuilding the country (hence the infamous "Socialism in one state" slogan), which included the creation of the industrial ability to build and produce modern weapons in large quantities,  which were to be used by the future invincible Red Army, when it would answer to the international proletariat's “shout for help,” and demolish the "awful capitalist imperialist pigs" by lightning war, only AFTER they had already been exhausted in an imperialist war between themselves!

Stalin's foreign policy pursued exactly this, and it succeeded! First, by using his international communist gangs, represented legally (and some illegally) as the Communist parties, he brought Mussolini to power in Italy, this move caused the division of the Italian Communist party, and those who did not want to follow Moscow's line split from it and formed the Socialist party. In 1933, Stalin did the same in Germany, using the German Communist party and then its political position as the decisive minority at the democratic elections in Germany, he allowed Hitler and his party to come to power. Stalin needed a crazy nationalist war seeker who was going to lead Germany against the "chains of the Versailles's treaty" and thus start the imperialist war, Stalin and the Bolsheviks needed in order to exhaust the imperialists first, and then LIBERATE them (rather than INVADE them). 

To make sure that Germany had the military potential to eventually wage a war of revenge (Germany was allowed only a very limited military after WWI), in 1927, Stalin invited the Germans to the Soviet Union, and gave them four Red Army bases where they could both work freely on their military innovations (such as creating the gas later used in the Holocaust camps), but also learn from the Red Army, which at the time was by far more experienced and advanced on the new modern maneuverable war,  which it gained during the civil war. Based on this cooperation, the German Wehrmacht later developed its own version known as the Blitzkrieg.

After failing to spark a new European war among the imperialists, first in Spain during the Civil War there, later the crisis with Czechoslovakia, Stalin finally succeeded, by approaching Hitler and fooling him into signing the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, which gave Hitler the so much needed and desired “OK” from the Soviet Union to achieve its strategic goals, by unifying the rest of the German people and territories then under the Polish state. In fact Stalin gave him half of Poland, plus limitless raw material supplies Germany so badly needed. This was the carrot Stalin used to fool Hitler into signing the pact. What Hitler was not aware of, was that by attacking Poland he was going to get himself into a major war with Britain and France, for which he was not prepared for in 1939, and examining his military program such a war was planned for the late 1940s early 1950s! Hitler believed that Britain and France will again let him have his, especially after realizing that he was doing this together with Stalin. Stalin knew about the firm British and French intentions to wage a war against Germany if it were to attack Poland, they had told him that during the months long negotiations for creation of an anti-Hitler coalition that took place in Moscow also in 1939.
The pact foresaw the invasion of Poland for 1 September, but Stalin intentionally delayed his entry, thereby exposing the entire aggression to Germany. As expected, Britain and France waged war against Germany, but withheld the same strategy against Stalin, when the Red Army invaded struggling Poland from the east only weeks later. The Second World War had began, but only Stalin knew that at the time, after all he worked so hard to plan and execute it.

With Stalin’s help, Germany achieved surprising and unexpected for them gains. Under the pressure of the British fleet, a large German contingency based in Norway was under the treat to be encircled. Germany had no other means to help them, but to strike  France in hope to divert the British fleet back south to help the French and British troops based there. The complete fall of France after the German attack, was surprising to Germany and many others. Suddenly Germany had gained more territory than it could control and manage, hence southern France was never really occupied. To the fast assuming shortsighted fools, this was a great victory, to the careful knowledgeable observer, this was a strategic suicide for Germany. As if that was not enough, the fronts quickly spread to Africa, and the Mediterranean region, and Germany was struggling to keep up, having to disperse further and further its meager forces. With the Greeks helping the Brits, and the Italians stuck in Albania, Hitler was forced to open yet another front, so he invaded Yugoslavia and then Greece, which meant more forces, more dispersing.

Meanwhile the great initiator, was planning the final touches of his grand invasion plan in Moscow.
The recently completed and still ongoing industrialization, which was basically the building of the biggest industrial complex in the Soviet Union with the help and aid of the US (75%) and Western countries (25%),  began giving results, and the Soviet Union was now the leading producer of military weapons in the world, not only in quantity but also in quality! That was apparently not enough for Stalin, so he was buying weapons from everyone else as well. Most of the time to simply compare them to the Soviet ones, but also to further develop the ideas and create the ultimate weapon.

To keep his own people and the rest of the world calm, Stalin needed few small scale border conflicts, they would serve as the motives which would explain why so many Soviet men were suddenly mobilized in September 1939 and kept in the army longer than usual. He combined this strategic need to resolve some outstanding problems to the south with Japan, and in August 1939 the Red Army executed the perfect deep penetration operation and annihilated the Japanese at the battle of Khalkhin Gol, and resolved the years long border incidents with the Japanese, and also let to the Soviet-Japanese pact later on, which allowed Stalin a peace of mind when the German forces were advancing east in their operation Barbarossa.

As the future invasion plan for Europe was changing shape in Stalin’s office, next came Finland, after asking impossible demands from it, and then staged a supposed Finish artillery attack on a Red Army position, the Red Army invaded Finland. In impossible conditions, and against an “invincible” defense line, according to the western specialists, the Red Army struggled four months before achieving its initial goal. The shortsighted fools quickly mocked the Red Army, while the smart understanding folks, drew the correct conclusion: the Red Army could achieve the victory at any cost, under any conditions and against invincible defense line. As a result the three Baltic states and Romania all accepted the demands of Moscow, understanding that they had no chance against the Red Army. Churchill and Hitler however, did not draw the right conclusions, and Hitler paid a heavy price for his failure.

After Stalin’s annexation of parts of Romania in 1940, Hitler got scared that Stalin was getting too close to the Romanian oil fields, Germany’s main fuel supply. As a result of this plus the numerous reports for the war preparations undergoing in the Soviet Union, led Hitler order the preparation of a plan for invasion of Russia. To camouflage his real intentions, and provoke an invasion of the Red army, Hitler kept a great disinformation campaign concerning the future invasion of BritainStalin on the other hand, believed Hitler to be a sane leader who would not risk his country in an impossible campaign which invading the Soviet Union obviously was. (to be continued)

domenica 9 settembre 2012

27 Yeras of World War II History Debate




27 years have passed by since Viktor Suvorov first published his five page article on Soviet Union’s role in directly causing what became World War II[1] (and thus all its evil derivatives including the Holocaust among others). Yet nothing seems to have changed in the way the public in the West has been informed about it. On one side there is Suvorov tirelessly publishing book after book on the matter, true, most of them never published in any Western language,[2] and on the other, there are the professional historians, especially the UK gang, but not limited to,  tirelessly insulting Viktor Suvorov and accusing him of all kinds of evils, of course FAILING to produce any evidence for their accusations. And these accusations are indeed astonishing. “Viktor Suvorov is a terrible person!”[3] He is endangering world peace![4] In order to understand why such “renowned” authors limit their criticism to such a level, we need to examine the debate in-depth.

Suvorov’s basic claim was based on a meticulous  research of the Red Army and the Soviet leadership moves especially from August 1939 onward, which clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that the Soviet Union was actively planning to attack Germany and the rest of Europe on July 6, 1941. The research Suvorov presented in his first book The Icebreaker,[5] and then he followed in seven more books is unique and unmatched by any other author thus far. Not a single critic of Suvorov has managed to refute his claim successfully. The short answer to the question “Why?”, is because their knowledge on the subject is terribly limited in comparison to Suvorov’s.  All anyone should do to come to this simple conclusion is to read a book written by Suvurov on that subject and then read one written by ANY of his opponents, especially the more outspoken ones, G. Gorodetsky and D. Glantz.[6]

Reading Suvorov is a learning experience. A professional Soviet military officer and intelligence analyst with unmatched knowledge on the subject is explaining every detail of the military art, that needs explanation, for the reader to understand why certain things were done in one way and not the other. The obvious military preparations were also matched to earlier political and theoretical motivation for their executions. The language is clear and understandable, allowing anyone with or without knowledge on the subject to understand, learn, and see what and why went on back then. When reading Gorodetsky and Glantz, make sure to have a lot of patience, caffeine, sympathy and most of all forgiveness for their lack of knowledge, understanding, coherence, logic and  the possession of plenty of boredom. Indeed the difference is so strikingly obvious, the two experiences are incomparable.

Only a person who has not read Suvorov can praise what Gorodetsky and Glantz have written. And the naked truth is such: even his most outspoken critics have NOT read all of Suvorov’s books! This can be easily detected in their writings, but also when one speaks directly to them. I met and discussed the subject personally with G. Gorodetsky, and the most I will give him is that he read the original 5 page article and perhaps The Icebreaker. Glantz I have not yet met, but from reading his books, and listening to his lectures on youtube, it seems he has read a bit more, as he is really partially plagiarizing off Suvorov if you ask me. Sure he may be doing it unintentionally, since he did not bother to read Suvorov, but in any case it dos not speak well for him.

The so called controversy is usually painted with political implications… how would the public react to this or that? How would the public react to the truth? Anyone? They will accept it, they will assess and appreciate it, and will move on with their lives. But such rude and absurd excuses are offered by the professional historians, as last resort before their imminent academic collapse.  The fact is, when Suvorov published his Icebreaker in 1990, the only people to react painfully to it were the professional historians (and not all of them). This book basically demolished their academic writings and threatened to do so with their careers, all their articles and published books, their academic resumes became an empty skeleton. The only way to save their careers was to isolate Suvorov from the academic debate and also the public, by censoring the further publication of his books. So, they united and began publishing anti-Suvorov books  (over 32 of them) and articles, accusing him of all evils, including anti-Semitism, and this to the man who claimed Stalin wanted to attack Hitler on 6 July 1941 and thus prevent the Holocaust from ever taking place, or at least to ever grow to such dire proportions that it did. Basically they were ready to use anything even play dirty to save their warm seats in the universities. Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Moscow, you name it, they stood together in baseless accusations, which of course Suvorov could not answer to, since his books were not published in the West.

27 years later the situation is unchanged. After 18 years, in 2008 Suvorov was allowed to publish another book on the subject in English language. Which is still unobtainable from amazon.co.uk, so try amazon.com if you really want to get it.[7] Meanwhile, the professionals continue to publish their own version of the history, which is a close reinterpretation of the Cold War Soviet propaganda sources published in endless volumes, as means to hide Soviet Union's responsibility for causing WWII. Of course, most public in the West has not read these Soviet sources, mostly published in Russian language, so they read the renowned Western historians, and believe the books were a product of their ingenious research. They tell themselves, if all these famous professional guys say Suvurov sucks, then he probably does, so why bother reading him?! In fact NOT reading Suvorov is the only way these professional historians can still hold some respect by occasional readers of their books.  

But there is another aspect to this debate, which no one seems to address. These professional historians are professors in the top and not so “top” universities in the West, and every semester they “teach” millions of young students… Soviet propaganda from the Cold War period, simply because their works and view are such. If Suvorov is mentioned, it is only done so as to accuse him of writing “myths” and if any reading is assigned, it is not his, but some of the usual critiques published in the past 20 years. So, millions of students are basically brainwashed, by not being given the chance to equally read and assess both sides of the debate and choose the side they believe has persuaded them more.

This is a crime in my opinion. I can understand why a handful of professional historians would fight dirty to save their careers, but to inflict their own shortsightedness and foolishness on millions of young students year after year, this is unjustified and stupid. Because when these “scholars” isolated Suvorov in the early 1990s, they actually isolated themselves into a world of academic illusions, where real research and study of history was cut out and replaced by propaganda repetition, not in the name of social well-being or political correctness, methodology or science, but for selfish salvation of few academic careers. Shame on all of you who supported and keep on supporting this scam, you call education!    

   





[1] Who was Planning to Attack Whom in June 1941, Hitler or Stalin?  The Journal of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, London, United Kingdom June 1985. Online: http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/suvorov.html
[2] Out of eight published books on the subject, two have been published in English and German languages, one in French and in Italian.
[3] Gabriel Gorodetsky to me at a conversation in May 2012 in Villa Schifanoia, EUI.
[4] David Glantz in his Stumbling Colossus intro.
[6] For example Grand Delusion by G. Gorodesky and Stumbling Colossus by D. Glantz.
[7] Suvorov, Viktor. Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II. (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 2008).