The Professionals vs. Suvorov

In order to understand the heart of the problem within WWII historiography we need to examine the recent past, and its origins. The beginning of it all could be traced back to the late 1980’s, when a defected ex-spy of the GRU (i.e., Soviet Military Intelligence) Vladimir Rezun, under the pseudonym Viktor Suvorov published his book The Ice-Breaker: Or who started the Second World War? His book was the first major explosion in the, until then peaceful, international historian community dealing with the issues of the Second World War. Suvorov’s book established the fundaments of the so called revisionist camp and caused the beginning of a world-wide debate on the history of the Second World War, which continues until the present day. Suvorov suggested that it was Stalin who meticulously planned another major European war, which would weaken the imperialist states, and give the opportunity for the Soviet Union to invade and sovietize the old continent and its colonies. Something Lenin and the Bolsheviks had failed to achieve during the First World War. Suvorov argued that Stalin needed Hitler to serve as the “ice-breaker” of his grand plan to spread the “world revolution” and expand by another step the communist hegemony. Thus, argued Suvorov, the German invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 was a pre-emptive strike on the part of Hitler, who had no other means of stopping Stalin’s major offensive planned for July 6 1941. The scale to which Suvorov’s claims shook the world were so great, that instead of using the momentum to actually revise the history, and try to put it in order, the so called “professional historians”, especially in the Western world, vigorously fought Suvorov’s ideas. When their professional and intellectual resource failed to produce convincing arguments for a final dismissal of Suvorov’s book, a simple but fruitful censorship on the author’s further books was introduced in the West in the early 1990’s. Ever since, Viktor Suvorov published six more books on this issue mainly in Russia and some of the East European countries. Until now, when finally Potomac Books is about to publish his new book in English language, The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II. After 15 years the English speaking public would have the chance once again to read Suvorov, rather than be limited to only the books of those who oppose his point of view!

It is time now to shed some light on the “professional historians” I refer to here so often. Who are they? Well, to my best understanding, it seems there is a group of friends at the top including, David Glantz, John Erickson, Gabriel Gorodetskey, Jonathan House, among others, who seem to be the core of the anti-Suvorov resistance. This core is also highly supported by other famous names, such as Jonathan Haslem, Robin Edmonds, Roger Reese, John Lukacs, among many others. If you read their works, their articles, their interviews you will immediately notice their tendency to praise each others works. Those from the outer circle, usually not military historians, would contribute by a praising book review of their works in renowned journals, such as Foreign Affairs is.

The most striking trade of their resistance is the complete failure to deliver any reasonable work which takes Suvorov’s arguments, and logically disproves them. Hitherto, no one had done so! Why? I would say, because it will be quite impossible. But unlike most of these gentlemen, I took the time to read all of Suvorov’s works, as well as most of their works. This experience showed me and persuaded me, that most of these men, had either partially read, or not read at all Suvorov’s books. The best they could come up with in their criticism was nothing more than cheap political statements, or even easier, complete ignore of Suvorov and his claims. Let us hear David Glantz, for example, since he seems to enjoy it a lot, “I am indeed refuting Suvorov's thesis. There is enough new about the war to write about without having to invent new theories, especially one that absolves Germany of guilt for the war and inflames historical passions in a most uncertain age.”[1] Coming out of a “professional historian” this kind of language could only impress an uninformed fool. Mr. Glantz seems to forget that not all people are fools. It is even more ironic, if one rerads a note to a recent paper by Glantz where he stated, “For example, see Viktor Suvorov (ne Rezin), Ledokol (Icebreaker) and Den'-M (M-Day), whose preposterous claims about blame for the war pervert history for political purposes and profit.”[2] I would go further and suggest to Mr. Glantz instead of filling up his work’s introductions, covers, and notes with unfounded political statements, to start filling the main text with real academic work, which would suggest he must read Suvorov first, and read him very carefully, then take his arguments, and explain to us the readers, where did Suvorov go wrong, and why? Until then, Mr.Glantz I would refuse to take your works for granted, and consider you a “professional”, because if this type of attitude is what you deem as being “professional” then the World Elite historians of WWII are in deep crisis! As to Glantz’s political statements, they only go to show that he had failed to read Suvurov himself. Because if he did, he would not have said the words he did! There is not a word or even a mild suggestion in Suvurov’s works about a theory “… that absolves Germany of guilt for the war…”, so please Mr. Glantz, do not over-react by fantasizing, as this is not a virtue of a “professional historian”.

There are some moderate examples among them, such I would consider to be Jonathan Haslem. Once Suvorov’s Icebreaker came out in 1990, Haslem understood that there was a real serious problem with the orthodox historiography of WWII. He refused to publish more books from the series he had begun earlier, and limited his efforts to only support those who continued the fight. That is one way to do it, or another is what Alan S. Milward did. He moved to EU historiography, and stayed away from this battle.

In my own experience, I find reading the works of these professional historians tedious and funny. Anyone who had read Suvorov’s works would probably feel the same. The books by the “professionals” look like methodologically organized kindergarten material compared to what Suvorov has published so far. And I mean that, this is not an exaggeration or overwhelming support for Suvorov, this is how strikingly wide the gap is between those, claimed by some to be the professionals in history, and an ex-military spy, who never claimed to be a professional historian. Suvorov’s extend and depth of research knowledge and understanding is so far beyond any of those who claim to be the professionals, that it is easy to understand why they had failed to understand so many things. Add to this the fact that Suvorov is a native Soviet born professional military officer and complete WWII and Soviet history freak throughout his life, and compare it with the professionals, who are first foreign, and most not professional military men, and even if they were they did not serve in the Red Army.

This is not a Suvorov propaganda article here, my point is simple: In case you want to understand the historiography of WWII, make sure to read BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY and make up your own mind about it! Only then you will begin to understand the whole complexity of the problem.

---

[1] http://www.consimworld.com/newsroom/archives/morenews/glantz.19981001.gen.html

[2] http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/failures.htm See first end note.