Did they?

One fact that always struck me as interesting is the attitude professional historians have towards Viktor Suvorov. Since they failed to even remotely question his thesis, they usually attack his personality. It is never forgotten that he was a defector, and that he is not a “professional” historian. Then, they tend to accuse his style of writing as being not methodologically sound.

It is funny to hear such accusations, for the professionals seem to forget that Suvorov defected from a regime, which today has been recognized as one of the bloodiest in human history. The mere fact that Suvorov became the most controversial and celebrated defectors from the Cold War era, suggests that he must have inflicted the most damage to the Soviet regime. Instead of praising him for that, the western historians accuse him of that, as if they served the Soviet communists, and not their own democratic countries. Or did they?

Ever since Suvorov defected to the United Kingdom back in 1978, he has been among other things a lecturer of military history in one of the UK military academies (the exact name is undisclosed for security reasons, I suppose). So, if we are to believe that he is an amateur, as claimed by the top brass professionals, than we must also agree that the government of the UK seems to have hired the wrong guy to teach their commanding stuff military history. Or did they?

The style of writing Suvorov uses is very different than what the top brass professionals use. There is a reason why, however! Suvorov is trying to reach the masses of people, who in their majority are not used to read and understand high class scientific language, which is usually appreciated among a handful of “specialists” who seem to get a kick out of it, believing that it sets them apart from the rest of humanity as being intellectuals. Or does it?

The basic truth is, language in any form is a means of communication of thoughts, ideas, analysis, etc. Even the most complicated language organized in a methodologically sound form, cannot hide incompetence, lack of logic, and misunderstanding, which is what the works of the “professionals” are full of. I believe that the real intellectual should be the person able to clearly and understandably to all communicate his/hers ideas and thoughts, otherwise they are useful to no one! Suvorov does exactly that, but there is another reason why he does so, as well. He is simply so knowledgeable on the subject that instead of filling his books with basic stories, he uses his time to publish the analysis of all this gained knowledge through research and experience. He is also a professional analyst, which makes him much more competent than the professional historians, for he is able to spot things which they (judging by their published works) would miss. Suvorov is able to read between the lines, like no other historian I have read could. No wonder, the government of the United Kingdom hired him for the job, and left the professional historians to bark in vain out of envy.

This whole situation makes me wonder: should I trust what the free-lance professionals say, or should I trust what a guy who teaches the commanding stuff of the Royal army and navy has to say? Well, I have made my choice; I will go with what the UK government chose this time.